A homeowner entered into oral contracts with both a painter and a landscaper to perform services. The landscaper began work and realized cost increases due to the soil. The homeowner later told the painter he could not continue. The painter had already purchased materials, including glass for a mosaic, and paid for a city permit to park a van. Which of the following would not be a possible liability for the homeowner?

• A. Cost of the glass
• B. The painter's permit costs
• C. The landscaper's increased costs
• D. The gardener's lost wages

Answer: (D)

When a party breaches a service contract, damages are measured by costs that were reasonably foreseeable and incurred in reliance on the contract, including materials already bought and other costs necessary to perform. The non-breaching party can recover those costs that were spent in preparation and performance, or to cover the breach, as long as there’s privity and foreseeability.

The glass for the mosaic is a direct cost incurred in the painter’s performance and would be recoverable as part of damages. The painter also paid a city permit to park the van, a cost tied to performing the contract, so that is recoverable too. Increased costs the landscaper incurred after starting work would likewise be recoverable if the homeowner’s breach affected those costs or if they were reasonably incurred in contemplation of performance under the contract.

The gardener’s lost wages, however, are not a liability the homeowner would incur from breaching the painter’s contract. Those wages pertain to the landscaper’s or gardener’s own work relationship and losses, which are not automatically damages owed by the homeowner unless there’s a direct privity-based claim or a foreseeably linked contract. Since the homeowner breached only the painter’s contract, the gardener’s lost wages aren’t a recoverable consequence of that breach.