http://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Div1/2018/1%20CA-CV%2016-0755.pdf

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3913380&forum_id=2#35563467)

court held that D breached a binding contract to sell the ring to P. damages were expectation interest / benefit of the bargain. court heard expert testimony and found the ring valued a 350K, and awarded a shitload of money to P.

what i dont get: P also sued the 3rd party buyer and settled with him for 60k. i dont get why the 3rd party buyer is liable for anything. but i just skimmed.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3913380&forum_id=2#35563608)

>>Evangelos also named as a defendant the

other buyer who had purchased the ring, but the buyer was dismissed as a

party and subsequently settled by paying Evangelos $60,000.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3913380&forum_id=2#35563500)

>>Even though Julie’s original eBay listing had closed, she

received an email later that evening from another eBay user offering

$150,000 for the ring. Julie responded that she believed she had already sold

the ring. The eBay user told Julie that he would make a deposit on the ring

and that his $150,000 offer was “well worth canceling the deal with

[Evangelos].”

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3913380&forum_id=2#35563695)

if he got ring that the court valued at 350k+ for only 150k, maybe he was happy to pay $60k to get the P to fuck off. but that's still a lot of money to pay. how much could this suit cost to litigate? it was a one day bench trial.

wonder if there's more to the story.

EDIT: see above. now i see he tried to bust up the deal. still, is that tortious interference under AZ law?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3913380&forum_id=2#35563682)

>>To calculate the ring’s market value, the court started with the

$389,000 listing price and reduced it 25% based on Julie’s expert’s Rapnet

report, resulting in a $291,750 market value. It further found that the

platinum setting and smaller diamonds had a $3,500 value and therefore

the ring’s total value at the time Julie breached was $295,250. The court then

subtracted the $60,000 Evangelos received from the other buyer and the

$100,000 Evangelos would have had to pay to purchase the ring, thereby

resulting in damages of $135,250.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3913380&forum_id=2#35563530)

the law worked

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3913380&forum_id=2#35564825)

yooooooj

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3913380&forum_id=2#35564846)

wonder if P's attorney took the case on contingency.

judge wouldnt give P attorney's fees.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3913380&forum_id=2#35564859)

She works in real estate, where it is OK to cancel a land-sale contract if someone offers you more.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3913380&forum_id=2#35563762)

so, this chick is selling off her engagement ring and is still married to the guy?

what a cuck.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3913380&forum_id=2#35563788)

your poast is missing a word. you mean married? they're divorcing

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3913380&forum_id=2#35563794)

fixed. thansk.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3913380&forum_id=2#35563803)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3913380&forum_id=2#35563872)

I'd start with John Munic Enters. v. Laos, 235 Ariz. 12 (Ct. App. 2014).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3913380&forum_id=2#35573208)

The concept of efficient breach doesn't mean the seller isn't on the hook for expectancy damages. In fact, it means the opposite.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3913380&forum_id=2#35565192)

¶11 The court then heard evidence from Julie’s gemologist. He testified that he had not been asked to determine the ring’s market value. He stated that “Rapnet may be a shadow of the market. It is not the actual market.” He further testified that market value should be determined by actual transactions and not asking prices—like those on Rapnet. The expert conceded that the diamond listed on Rapnet for $389,000 was the same diamond in question, albeit slightly smaller. Although the expert did not opine on the ring’s market value, he did provide a report on two-carat diamonds listed on Rapnet to show that prices varied up to 25%.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3913380&forum_id=2#35565440)