Reliance

The MBE pattern is a fact stem where the plaintiff sank money into preparing to perform, then the deal collapsed before any profit accrued — and the call asks for the recoverable amount, not the theory. The “tell” is that lost profits are too speculative to prove with reasonable certainty (a new venture, no track record), which steers you away from expectation. Watch the cap: under Restatement (Second) § 349, reliance recovery is reduced by any loss the breaching party proves with reasonable certainty the plaintiff would have suffered had the contract been performed — so a “losing contract” can shrink recovery toward zero. The limit is that offset, not the contract price.

Don’t confuse reliance with restitution, which measures the benefit conferred on the defendant, not the plaintiff’s wasted expenditures — and a non-breaching party’s restitution is generally not capped at the contract price (Algernon Blair). Reliance is the usual estoppel remedy when consideration is missing (§ 90 — though the court may limit relief “as justice requires”). You elect one measure; the “add them together” choice is the classic trap.