Jayne Butterfield, a single mother with three children, lived in Sacramento, California. Sarah Huckleberry also lived in California until she moved to New York City to open and operate an art gallery. Huckleberry asked Butterfield to manage the gallery under a one-year contract for an annual salary of $90,000. To begin work, Butterfield relocated to New York. As part of the move, Butterfield transferred custody of her children to her husband, who lived in London, England. In accepting the job, Butterfield also forfeited her husband's alimony and child-support payments, including unpaid amounts of nearly $45,000. Before Butterfield started work, Huckleberry repudiated the contract. Unable to find employment for more than an annual salary of $30,000, Butterfield moved to London to be near her children. She filed a suit in an California state court against Huckleberry, seeking damages for breach of contract. Should the court hold, as Huckleberry argued, that Butterfield did not take reasonable steps to mitigate her damages? Why or why not?

The rule of mitigation that Huckleberry tries to use in her favor states that the non-breaching party (Butterfield) should have taken all the necessary steps to reduce her loss, e.g. take a job in New York. She probably argued that Butterfield leaving for England to meet with her children made things worse.

But in this case, Butterfield relied on Huckleberry's promise to organize her life and the well being of her children. Butterfield made a lot of changes and sacrifices in her life because of this, e.g. forfeiting unpaid alimony, transferring custody of her children , etc.

Moving to a different city or country requires a lot of work, expat life is not easy and not everyone can handle it. Butterfield took decisions that affected the lives of many people and she is not responsible for Huckleberry's breaching, the only party responsible for all this mess is Huckleberry and it is normal that Butterfield would want to go to where her children are.