“A breach of contract is committed when one party, without lawful excuse, fails or refuses to perform what is owed to him under the contract , or executes incorrectly or expects to execute. » Breach of contract laws have often been criticized for their unfair results. This may be because the law is not intended to punish the defendant but rather to obtain relief for the plaintiff. Insufficient compensation for breach of contract is a widely recognized problem. There appear to be few cases where the plaintiff is able to recover their full damages. Typically, he receives a nominal sum that seems almost unrelated to the damages claim. Only on rare occasions is the applicant fully recovered. It has been argued that unless the damages are adequate repairs, the remedy is "...hollow, devoid of all practical force and void of content". It is very difficult to determine how to award damages, which often leads to injustices. When awarding damages for breach of contract, courts generally consider three types of interests in order to find the fairest outcome for the plaintiff. These three interests are: waiting interest, restitution interest and dependency interest. Expected interest is the most common of the three and is used although it is often criticized for producing results that are not relative to the violation. This essay will reflect on these three types of interests in order to prove that damages for breach of contract do not always produce a fair result. Indeed, the law in this area is inconsistent, particularly with regard to restitution interest which appears to be more of an exception to a rule rather than a gateway to settlement....... middle of paper ... ... on . Failure is failure and the claimants should be given more support so that they can receive their damages. The award of expected damages should not always be the first point of appeal for damages and primarily leads to the award of a nominal sum. It was argued that receiving liquidated damages or nominal damages was not an effective means of recovering damages. It has been argued that a claimant who recovers only nominal damages has “…effectively lost and in effect the defendant has established a complete defence”. It is true that nominal damages are rarely relevant to the issue at hand and seem to be a way of giving plaintiff something without giving them what they want. Overall, awarding damages for breach of contract does not bring the fairest result, due to the legal difficulties and mainly because the courts will not punish the wrongdoer..