2021 Georgia Code
Title 13 - Contracts
Chapter 6 - Damages and Costs Generally
§ 13-6-6. Damages and Expenses Recoverable - Nominal Damages

In every case of breach of contract the injured party has a right to damages, but if there has been no actual damage, the injured party may recover nominal damages sufficient to cover the costs of bringing the action.

(Orig. Code 1863, § 2887; Code 1868, § 2895; Code 1873, § 2946; Code 1882, § 2946; Civil Code 1895, § 3801; Civil Code 1910, § 4397; Code 1933, § 20-1409.)

- For annual survey of construction law, see 56 Mercer L. Rev. 109 (2004). For annual survey of insurance law, see 57 Mercer L. Rev. 221 (2005). For note, "A Single Symbolic Dollar: How Nominal Damages Can Keep Lawsuits Alive," see 52 Ga. L. Rev. 935 (2018).

Reason for awarding nominal damages in contract cases is to carry costs. Foote & Davies Co. v. Malony, 115 Ga. 985, 42 S.E. 413 (1902).

Any breach of contract can give rise to nominal damages. Southeastern Waste Treatment, Inc. v. Chem-Nuclear Sys., 506 F. Supp. 944 (N.D. Ga. 1980).

Although the record established that plaintiffs are not entitled to actual damages sought for the breach of contract dispute against the city for failure to follow certain personnel rules, plaintiffs are entitled to recover nominal damages sufficient to cover the costs of bringing the action. Atkinson v. City of Roswell, 203 Ga. App. 192, 416 S.E.2d 550 (1992).

- Term nominal damages is purely relative, and carries with the term no suggestion of certainty as to amount, while the term generally refers to a trivial sum awarded. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Glenn, 8 Ga. App. 168, 68 S.E. 881 (1910).

- Bank was not entitled to nominal damages under O.C.G.A. § 13-6-6 on the bank's successful breach of contract claim because the bank's complaint sought equitable, injunctive, and declarative relief only; the complaint's boilerplate request for "all other relief that the Court deems just and proper under the circumstances" was too vague to support a claim for nominal damages. Keybank Nat'l Ass'n v. Fairpoint, LLC, F. Supp. 2d (N.D. Ga. Oct. 14, 2008).

- If plaintiff fails to furnish sufficient data to enable jury, with reasonable degree of certainty and exactness, to estimate actual damages sustained by purchaser, then the plaintiff's recovery will be restricted to nominal damages. Crawford & Assocs. v. Groves-Keen, Inc., 127 Ga. App. 646, 194 S.E.2d 499 (1972).

- Although a terminated employee claimed that the employer had not been damaged by any of the employee's actions or inaction, it was clear that a lack of damages would not be a bar to a breach of contract claim by the employer. Crippen v. Outback Steakhouse Int'l, L.P., 321 Ga. App. 167, 741 S.E.2d 280 (2013).

- Possible recovery of nominal damages to cover the cost of bringing the action is sufficient to preclude summary judgment in a claim for breach of contract, if plaintiff can establish a genuine issue of fact as to liability. Poe v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 1 F. Supp. 2d 1472 (N.D. Ga. 1998).

When plaintiff patient sued defendant medical device manufacturer for breach of contract, alleging manufacturer in a letter agreed to pay for third surgery to remove and replace the device, manufacturer's motion for summary judgment that argued the patient could not prove damages because the patient's insurer paid the costs of the surgery was denied because under O.C.G.A. § 13-6-6, even if there was no actual damage, the patient could recover nominal damages sufficient to cover the costs of bringing the action. Trickett v. Advanced Neuromodulation Sys., 542 F. Supp. 2d 1338 (S.D. Ga. 2008).

In a breach of contract suit filed under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act of 1930, 7 U.S.C. § 499e, by a Chilean sweet onion grower against American produce buyers to determine the amount the buyers owed after a shipment of onions lost value due to delivery delay, summary judgment was not appropriate in favor of the grower on the issue of damages; although the buyers did not provide evidence of damages, under O.C.G.A. § 13-6-6, the buyers were eligible for nominal damages, and the issue could not be decided as a matter of law. HAAC Chile, S.A. v. Bland Farms, LLC, F. Supp. 2d (S.D. Ga. Aug. 26, 2008).

Healthcare facilities filed counterclaims against a company, alleging the facilities breach of the parties' contracts caused the facilities lost profits. As the facilities were entitled to nominal damages under O.C.G.A. § 13-6-6 if the facilities proved the company breached the contracts, the company was not entitled to summary judgment on the counterclaims based on the lack of evidence of the facilities' lost income. Eastview Healthcare, LLC v. Synertx, Inc., 296 Ga. App. 393, 674 S.E.2d 641 (2009).

Trial court erred in granting a rental company and an independent third party administrator summary judgment in a car owner's action alleging that they breached a settlement agreement on the ground that the owner incurred no damages from the administrator's inclusion of Medicare as a payee on the settlement check because genuine issues of fact remained with regard to damages suffered by the owner; the owner had the right to seek specific performance of an express agreement regarding the payees to be listed on the settlement check, and there was a general right to seek nominal damages in breach of contract actions. Hearn v. Dollar Rent A Car, Inc., 315 Ga. App. 164, 726 S.E.2d 661 (2012).

Trial court erred by granting summary judgment to a subdivision association on the lot owners' breach of contract claim because nothing in the subdivision master declarations permitted the association to make consolidation of the lots conditional upon the owners' execution of an affidavit acknowledging that the lots would be permanently assessed separately; thus, the owners were entitled to recover nominal damages. Henderson v. Sugarloaf Residential Prop. Owners Ass'n, 320 Ga. App. 544, 740 S.E.2d 273 (2013).

In a suit against funeral home defendants in a case arising out of the defendants' failure to ensure that the cremated remains of the plaintiff's decedent were in the urn that was to contain the ashes, the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to the defendants on the breach of contract claim based on concluding that there were no actual damages arising from the alleged breach since nominal damages were still recoverable. Justice v. SCI Ga. Funeral Servs., 329 Ga. App. 635, 765 S.E.2d 778 (2014).

In a dispute between registered representatives (RRs) and the RRs former firm after the RRs quit and joined a competing firm without giving notice as required in the RRs' contracts, the trial court erred in finding that the Protocol for Broker Recruiting invalidated the contract notice provisions, the protocol did not address such provisions, and it was possible for the firm to recover at least nominal damages for the RRs' breach. HA&W Capital Partners, LLC v. Bhandari, 346 Ga. App. 598, 816 S.E.2d 804 (2018).

No application when only special or punitive damages are sought. Haber, Blum, Bloch Hat Co. v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 118 Ga. 874, 45 S.E. 696 (1903); Hadden v. Southern Messenger Serv., 135 Ga. 372, 69 S.E. 480 (1910); King v. Cox, 130 Ga. App. 91, 202 S.E.2d 216 (1973); Solon Automated Servs., Inc. v. Pines Assoc., 156 Ga. App. 34, 274 S.E.2d 12 (1980).

When allegations are insufficient to authorize recovery of any special damages and there is no prayer for general damages, plaintiff is not entitled to recover nominal damages. East Side Lumber & Coal Co. v. Barfield, 195 Ga. 505, 24 S.E.2d 681 (1943).

Rule that in every case of breach of contract the other party has a right to recover nominal damages does not apply when only special damages are sued for and these are not recoverable. Bennett v. Associated Food Stores, Inc., 118 Ga. App. 711, 165 S.E.2d 581 (1968).

- Defendant cannot recover nominal damages under plea of recoupment to reduce plaintiff's claim in consequence of some breach of same contract by plaintiff. Foote & Davies Co. v. Malony, 115 Ga. 985, 42 S.E. 413 (1902).

Nominal damages are not available to defendant as defendant is not a party seeking damages. Atlanta Bd. of Educ. v. Oxford Bldg. Servs., 136 Ga. App. 168, 220 S.E.2d 485 (1975).

- Trial court erred in not giving a jury charge requested by a seller in a breach of contract action, to the effect that a party not breaching a contract in a breach of contract action is entitled to at least nominal damages, because the requested charge was a correct statement of law under O.C.G.A. § 13-6-6, it was not substantially included in the instructions given, and the requested charge was adjusted to the evidence in the case; the trial court's failure to give the requested nominal damages charge, coupled with the use of a verdict form that specified actual damages but not nominal damages, improperly removed the issue of nominal damages from the jury's consideration. Brock v. King, 279 Ga. App. 335, 629 S.E.2d 829 (2006), aff'd, 282 Ga. 56, 646 S.E.2d 206 (2007).

- See Taylor v. Allen, 131 Ga. 416, 62 S.E. 291 (1908).

- See Graham & Ward v. Macon, D. & S.R.R., 120 Ga. 757, 49 S.E. 75 (1904).

- Trial court erred in a breach of contract suit when the court denied the defendant's motion for a new trial as to the amount of nominal damages awarded because an award of nominal damages in the amount of $120,000 in a case in which actual damages amounted to five times that amount is neither absolutely nor relatively trivial. Fowler's Holdings, LLLP v. CLP Family Invs., L.P., 318 Ga. App. 73, 732 S.E.2d 777 (2012).

- See Kenny v. Collier, 79 Ga. 743, 8 S.E. 58 (1887).

- See Cole v. Western Union Tel. Co., 23 Ga. App. 479, 98 S.E. 407 (1919).

- See Hadden v. Southern Messenger Serv., 135 Ga. 372, 69 S.E. 480 (1910).

- If a corporation was able to prove a breach of a consent judgment by the corporation's previous owner, the corporation could not show actual damages and was limited to recovering nominal damages because the corporation's claim was foreclosed by a previous decision of the court of appeals; that case was binding precedent and established that regardless of the owner's proof of claim, a sale of a motel would not have occurred, precluding the corporation's recovery of actual damages on the corporation's breach of contract claim. Duke Galish, LLC v. Manton, 308 Ga. App. 316, 707 S.E.2d 555 (2011).

- Secured seller of an adult novelty business who was required to foreclose and continue to operate the business was entitled to recover at least nominal damages for the buyer's breach of a non-compete agreement, although the seller was unable to prove lost profits. Bearoff v. Craton, 350 Ga. App. 826, 830 S.E.2d 362 (2019).

New trial granted when plaintiff was improperly nonsuited, to enable plaintiff to recover nominal damages. This rule does not apply where reversal of judgment denying new trial is sought. Bloom Sons v. Americus Grocery Co., 116 Ga. 784, 43 S.E. 54 (1902).

- When a lessor showed evidence that premises leased to a lessee were damaged, the lessor's recovery was properly limited to nominal damages because the evidence as to the amount of damages was speculative. Lay Bros., Inc. v. Golden Pantry Food Stores, Inc., 273 Ga. App. 870, 616 S.E.2d 160 (2005).

- Trial court's grant of summary judgment to a funeral home on the breach of contract claim was reversed because although the widower did not suffer actual damages by admission since the widower never paid the funeral home the $1,500 fee to arrange the cremation and memorial services, there was some evidence from which a jury could find that the funeral home breached a contract. Moore v. Lovein Funeral Home, Inc., 358 Ga. App. 10, 852 S.E.2d 876 (2020).

Cited in Pausch v. Guerrard, 67 Ga. 319 (1881); Barrett v. Verdery, 93 Ga. 526, 21 S.E. 64 (1893); Sutton v. Southern Ry., 101 Ga. 776, 29 S.E. 53 (1897); Cothran v. Witham, 123 Ga. 190, 51 S.E. 285 (1905); Glenn v. Western Union Tel. Co., 1 Ga. App. 821, 58 S.E. 83 (1907); Williams v. Rome Ry. & Light Co., 4 Ga. App. 372, 61 S.E. 495 (1908); Atlantic C.L.R.R. v. Thomas, 14 Ga. App. 619, 82 S.E. 299 (1914); Harris v. Black, 143 Ga. 497, 85 S.E. 742 (1915); Twin City Lumber Co. v. Daniels, 22 Ga. App. 578, 96 S.E. 437 (1918); Jeter v. Davis, 33 Ga. App. 733, 127 S.E. 898 (1925); Robbins v. Hays, 107 Ga. App. 12, 128 S.E.2d 546 (1962); Pure Oil Co. v. Dukes, 107 Ga. App. 326, 130 S.E.2d 234 (1963); Dukes v. Pure Oil Co., 112 Ga. App. 111, 143 S.E.2d 769 (1965); Davis v. Boyd, 118 Ga. App. 198, 162 S.E.2d 880 (1968); Graham Bros. Constr. Co. v. C.W. Matthews Contracting Co., 159 Ga. App. 546, 284 S.E.2d 282 (1981); Crites v. Delta Air Lines, 177 Ga. App. 723, 341 S.E.2d 264 (1986); Don Swann Sales Corp. v. Parr, 189 Ga. App. 222, 375 S.E.2d 466 (1988); Belcher v. Thomson Newspapers, Inc., 190 Ga. App. 466, 379 S.E.2d 204 (1989); Haehn v. Alheit, 212 Ga. App. 252, 441 S.E.2d 529 (1994); McEntyre v. Edwards, 261 Ga. App. 843, 583 S.E.2d 889 (2003); Fowler's Holdings, LLLP v. CLP Family Invs., L.P., 318 Ga. App. 73, 732 S.E.2d 777 (2012).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 22 Am. Jur. 2d, Damages, §§ 5, 6.

- 17A C.J.S., Contracts, §§ 523(1), 641.

- Rate of exchange to be taken into account in assessing damages for breach of contract, 50 A.L.R. 1273; 105 A.L.R. 640.

Damages for breach by seller or former employee of covenant, express or implied, not to engage in like business or enter employment of competitor of covenantee, 127 A.L.R. 1152.

Measure and elements of sublessee's damages recoverable from sublessor for latter's failure to exercise option to renew his lease, 94 A.L.R.2d 1345.

Liability of real-estate broker for interference with contract between vendor and another real-estate broker, 34 A.L.R.3d 720.

Measure and elements of contract to lend money, 4 A.L.R.4th 682.