I just read an interesting and kind of funny case. A man (the "plaintiff") got married and hired a wedding photographer (the "defendant") to take pictures and a video. That is not unusual. I had a wedding photographer at my wedding. The plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant photographer with the fee being a little over $4,000.
The plaintiff was not happy with the quality of the pictures and the length of the video (which was supposed to be of the whole wedding and reception). The plaintiff sued for breach of contract, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, false advertising, punitive damages and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
In addition to the plaintiff not being happy with the photographer, he was also not happy with his wife. They divorced and by the time the case against the photographer came to court, the plaintiff did not even where his ex was or how to get in touch with her.
The interesting thing about this case is that the plaintiff wanted damages in excess of $50,000 in order to allow him to recreate the wedding pictures. Presumably the wedding cost about 50 grand and he wanted to do it over so the pictures could be taken to his satisfaction. Now why in the world would a man want to recreate a wedding to a woman he divorced? I never heard of a person asking for this type of damages in a lawsuit. Further, even if the court ordered a do over, who would be the bride. The plaintiff admitted he didn't even know where she was. Would this guy be happy with a stand-in bride just for the pictures?
All this is kinda funny, but not to the defendant who stood to lose $50,000 if the plaintiff was successful. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case. The judge did dismiss some of the counts, but let the breach of contract claim go forward. The judge stated that the damages should not be for the 50 grand even if the plaintiff was successful. It would, at most, be for the contract price or around $4,000.