“A breach of contract is committed when a party without lawful justification fails or refuses to perform what is owed to it under the contract, or defectively performs or anticipates execute”. Breach of contract laws have often been criticized for their unjust outcomes, perhaps because the law does not aim to punish the defendant but instead seeks compensation for the plaintiff. The inadequacy of compensation for breach of contract is a widely recognized problem. There appear to be few cases where the claimant is able to claim full damages, generally they are given a nominal sum which seems almost irrelevant to the damages claim; only on rare occasions is the claimant fully compensated. It has been argued that unless the damages are adequately remedied, the remedy is “…an empty remedy, devoid of any practical force and devoid of content”. There is much difficulty in determining how to compensate for damages and this has often led to injustice. When seeking damages for breach of contract, there are generally three types of interests that courts consider to find the fairest outcome for the claimant. These three interests are: expectation interest, restitution interest and trust interest. Expected interest is the most common of the three and is used although it is often criticized for creating results that are not related to the violation. This essay will reflect on these three types of interests in order to demonstrate that damages for breach of contract do not always create a fair outcome. This is because the law in this area is inconsistent, especially in relation to restitution interests which appear to be more of an exception to a rule rather than a gateway to… . Failure is failure and claimants should be further supported so that they can receive damages. The award of damages should not always be the first point of claiming compensation and mainly leads to the award of a nominal sum. It has been argued that receiving nominal services/damages is an ineffective way to recover damages. It has been argued that a plaintiff who recovers only nominal damages has "...actually lost and in fact the defendant has established a complete defense." This is true, nominal damages are rarely relevant to the issue at hand and seem to be a way of giving compensation by demanding something without giving them what they want. Overall, damages for breach of contract do not lead to the fairest result, this is due to legal difficulties and above all because the courts will not punish the wrongdoer.