Mo' money

In Contracts, we've been discussing the recovery of damages awarded for breach of contract during the last 2 weeks. It's still unclear to me as to why we'd study damages before defining the actual breach, but apparently there is some reason to this madness. The professor claims that we will better understand Contract theory if we are already educated in the various types of recovery. In the introductory cases, the breach is clearly stated so it seems somewhat easy. The damages, however, are quite the contrary. At times, the damages awarded seem to confuse the crap out of me and everyone else for that matter. Today, the professor introduced a scenario in which he was the bridge builder that just breached a contract with us being representatives of the City contracting him to build the bridge. He wasn't too clear in his example as he brought up the same old question, "Now what kind of damages does this seem to reflect?" No one answered. He proclaimed, "You're all sitting here staring at me as if I'm too fat to build the bridge. Your damn skippy. You'd be stupid to hire me as a bridge builder, but that's not the question. So, let me pose the question again..." This time several people answered at once with everyone producing a different answer. Luckily he didn't have to squint his eyes in disgust as he typically does. Class was over. We were off the hook. Sometimes the clock works in your favor.