BUS 206 Module 6 Discussion Example

Reviewed by Portia Lambrick, MBA

This BUS 206 Module 6 Discussion sample asks what a business can recover when a partner breaks a contract partway through. SNHU BUS 206 (BUS-206) turns to breach and remedies in Module Six for BS Business Administration students. A resort outside Albuquerque signed a two-year agreement to sell a composite balloon company's sunrise flights as part of its packages, guaranteeing 2,000 passengers a year, then ended the deal after three months. The post estimates the company's expected profit on the remaining flights, explains the duty to reduce the loss by finding other customers, separates foreseeable from speculative losses, explains why a court will not force the resort to perform and asks classmates how a liquidated damages clause would have changed things.

CourseBUS 206 Business Law I
ModuleModule 6
Paper typeundergraduate discussion post on breach of contract and remedies
LengthAbout 380 words, 3 pages
FormatAPA 7 student paper
SchoolSouthern New Hampshire University
ProgramBS Business Administration
UpdatedOctober 2026

Free sample paper for BUS 206 Module 6

1

Module Six Discussion

Sixteen Hundred Passengers Who Will Not Fly

In March 2025, a resort north of Albuquerque signed a two-year agreement with the balloon company I have been following. The resort would include a sunrise flight in its weekend packages and guaranteed to send at least 2,000 passengers a year at a discounted price of $185, about $34 below the company's regular weekday fare. In June, after about 400 passengers, the resort ended the agreement, saying it had found a cheaper ride operator. The contract had no termination clause.

What this page is doingThe breach is described.
2

The basic remedy is expectation damages: what the company would have earned if the resort had performed. That is lost profit, not lost revenue, because the company no longer bears the cost of flying those passengers. With fuel, crew time and balloon wear at about $125 per passenger, profit was about $60 each. For the remaining 1,600 passengers this contract year, the loss is about $96,000, and the second year adds more.

The company cannot simply wait and claim that amount. Under the duty to mitigate, it must make reasonable efforts to fill those seats with other customers and can recover only what it could not avoid. In a well-known bridge case, a builder who kept working after the county canceled could not recover the costs of the work done afterward (Rockingham County v. Luten Bridge Co., 1929). If the company sells 900 of those seats at its regular price, its damages fall accordingly.

Consequential losses are harder. Losses beyond the contract are recoverable only if both parties could reasonably foresee them when they contracted (Hadley v. Baxendale, 1854). The resort knew the company had planned its pilot schedule around the package, so the cost of a pilot already hired for the season may count. Lost word of mouth from resort guests who would have told friends is too speculative.

A court will not order the resort to keep selling packages. Specific performance is reserved mainly for unique things such as land, and Mallor et al. (2022) note that courts are reluctant to supervise ongoing business relationships.

What this page is doingThe remedies are worked out.
3

For classmates: the contract had no liquidated damages clause. If you had drafted it, what amount per unsold passenger would you have set, and how would you make sure a court treated it as a fair estimate rather than a penalty?

What this page is doingClassmates are asked about prevention.
4

References

Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Ex. 341, 156 Eng. Rep. 145 (1854).

Mallor, J. P., Barnes, A. J., Bowers, L. T., & Langvardt, A. W. (2022). Business law: The ethical, global, and e-commerce environment (18th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

Rockingham County v. Luten Bridge Co., 35 F.2d 301 (4th Cir. 1929).

What the BUS 206 Module 6 instructions ask for

The Module Six discussion in BUS 206 usually asks about breach of contract and remedies. You may be asked what remedies are available when a contract is broken, how damages are measured or when a court will order performance instead of money. A strong post uses a specific breach with numbers, calculates the injured party's expected loss, applies the duty to mitigate and the limits on consequential damages, and explains why equitable remedies are or are not available. Cases that established these rules give the post weight. Replies can test whether a classmate's damages would survive the foreseeability or mitigation rules. Many prompts also ask what the injured business should have put in the contract to avoid the dispute.

How this BUS 206 Module 6 discussion example is built

The post describes a resort that guaranteed 2,000 package passengers a year for two years and ended the contract after about 400. It estimates the company's lost profit on the remaining 1,600 passengers this contract year at about $60 each, roughly $96,000, after subtracting costs the company no longer bears. It explains that the company must make reasonable efforts to sell those seats elsewhere and can recover only losses it could not avoid. It argues that lost bookings from resort guests were foreseeable but lost word of mouth is too speculative, explains that a court will not force the resort to keep selling, and asks how a liquidated damages clause would have changed the dispute.

Where the BUS 206 Module 6 rubric puts the points

Scoring on this thread usually rests on an accurate explanation of remedies, a worked damages estimate, correct use of mitigation and foreseeability, the treatment of equitable remedies and engagement with classmates. Higher marks go to posts that subtract saved costs, recognize the duty to mitigate and distinguish foreseeable from speculative losses with reasons. Posts that claim the whole contract price, or that assume a court will order performance, earn less. A reply that applies the foreseeability rule to a classmate's claimed loss, or suggests a contract clause that would have helped, adds the most. Showing the arithmetic, even with rounded figures, is what separates a strong post from a summary of rules.

BUS 206 Module 6 help: the mistakes that cost points

Damages discussions often claim the full value of the contract. Expectation damages aim to put the injured party where it would have been if the contract had been performed, which means lost profit, not lost revenue, because the company saves the costs of flights it no longer flies. Apply the duty to mitigate; the company must try to fill the seats and cannot recover losses it could reasonably have avoided. Use the foreseeability test for any losses beyond the contract itself. A short worked example with numbers makes the post far stronger than a list of remedies. Finish by asking classmates to test a contract clause that might have prevented the loss.

Get BUS 206 Module 6 written to your instructions

Send the BUS 206 Module 6 prompt. The post will work out damages for a real-feeling breach, apply mitigation and foreseeability correctly and give classmates a question that tests the remedies. Two days, about; a first post is free. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Southern New Hampshire University document.

More BUS 206 papers and related BS Business Administration samples

BUS 206 Module 6 questions, answered

Where can I find a free BUS 206 Module 6 Discussion sample?

This page includes the full BUS 206 Module 6 post on a resort that broke its package contract with a balloon company.

What are expectation damages?

Money that puts the injured party in the position it would have been in if the contract had been performed, usually measured as lost profit plus incidental costs.

What is the duty to mitigate damages?

The injured party's obligation to take reasonable steps to reduce its loss after a breach; losses it could have avoided are not recoverable.

What are consequential damages?

Losses that flow from special circumstances beyond the contract itself, recoverable only if they were foreseeable to both parties when the contract was made.

When will a court order specific performance?

Mainly when money cannot adequately compensate, such as for unique property like land; courts rarely order performance of ordinary service or sales agreements.