Restaurant owners quarreled with the restaurant's chef, and as a result, shares promised to him under a share allocation agreement in the company managing the activity were not allocated. The company collapsed, so the chef demanded the salary he would have received for his work if he had agreed to accept shares instead of salary.
The Court dismissed the chef's claim to receive proper wages for his work instead of the unallocated share. In the event of a breach of agreement the compensation is to bring the party injured by the breach of the agreement to the position in which he would have been had the agreement not been breached. In this case, had chef received the shares. When it comes to loss of shares, their value must be determined at the time of the breach, even if the company later collapsed and the shares lost their value. However, the chef did not demand the value of the shares on the date he was supposed to receive them, but rather "proper wages" for the work for which he was supposed to receive the shares, but there is no reason to change the terms of the contract retroactively, even if it was breached. Therefore, the lawsuit was dismissed.