This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P's 'lost profits' - i.e., its expectation damages - 'cannot be reasonably quantified.' P instead seeks to recover its reliance damages. P paid $800,000 into an escrow account, of which $250,000 was immediately payable to King. P expended approximately one million dollars in preparation for the bout. These expenses include transportation, lodging, facilities, and promotion. P seeks $1.8 million. D concedes that $536,000 - which represents the portion of the escrow account not immediately payable to King ($550,000), minus legal fees, plus interest - is due to P per the terms of the parties' escrow agreement. P contends the $250,000 that was immediately payable to him upon execution of the Agreement is subject to and governed by the terms of the Agreement, which earmarks the $250,000 as a 'non-refundable' payment to be retained 'whether or not the bout occurs.' D argues that New York law provides for recovery of reasonable, foreseeable, reliance damages, but those damages must be offset by 'any loss that . . . the injured party would have suffered had the contract been performed.' D contends that P would have incurred significant losses even if the bout had gone forward. D argues that P's reliance damages should be capped at the amount of revenue that P could reasonably have expected from the bout, which, if measured in terms of the ticket sales that WOB was forced to refund, is just shy of $100,000. D asks this Court either (1) to enter judgment for P in that amount, plus return of the $536,000 currently being held in escrow, or (2) to deny P's motion on the grounds that parties have a material dispute of fact regarding whether, and to what extent, P would have suffered losses if the bout had occurred.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.