Even then, the measure of damages would have to reflect actual damages. Under ordinary contracts, damages for breach of contract do not include the indirect costs resulting to the non-breaching party. Therefore, a party who orders a new freezer may not sue for the cost of spoiled meat if the breach of agreement to provide the refrigerator on the specified date caused the buyer to lose perishable food that he ordered for delivery that same day, hoping to store it in the new refrigerator. However, parties may also specify the nature of specific damages that will be caused by a breach, and where those terms are part of the contract, the breach will entitle the non-breaching party to those specific damages that were included as material terms of the contract. In order for breach of contract to give rise to consequential damages, they must be detailed in the contract and both parties must agree to those terms.

Opinion:

The plaintiff in this case actually sued for $400,000 in damages, accusing the florist of a "bait and switch scheme" in addition to "unjust enrichment" by charging for very expensive flowers but providing only cheap flowers of a much lesser quality, which had a "... significant impact on the look of the room and was entirely inconsistent with the vision the plaintiffs had bargained for" (NYT, 2007).

According to contract law, the plaintiff will probably not be entitled to any damages of the nature described. If the case goes to trial and the evidence shows that the florist did not fulfill the contract properly, the measure of damages will be only the difference between what the value of the flowers...

Had the plaintiff discovered the problem before delivery, she could have paid another florist for the right flowers and then sued Posy for the difference in price for the rush delivery.
This would be the just outcome of the case, because even if the florist did provide the wrong flowers, the plaintiff was not damaged except by paying for a greater value than she received. Because the goods and services under contract were only decorative in nature, it would be unfair to allow such high damages that do not correspond to any actual harm suffered by the plaintiff. The type of damages requested in this case would only be justified if the breach caused actual harm that was specified in the contract.

A different outcome might, for example, be justified where the flowers were ordered to feed an exotic animal and the contract contained a clause specifying the importance of receiving exactly the right flowers and responsibility for harm to the animal caused by any breach to provide the right flowers.