Care, Inc., 39 Cal.App.4th 508, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 16, 24 (1995) (“There cannot be a valid express contract and an implied contract, each embracing the same subject, but requiring different results.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). The other possible theory urged by Dinwiddie is that United had a good faith obligation to continue to negotiate delay damages. But even if United had such an obligation, Dinwiddie could not recover because any damages from a breach of such an obligation is inherently speculative. See, e.g., Vestar Dev. II v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 249 F.3d 958, 961-62 (9th Cir.2001); accord Auerbach v. Great W. Bank, 74 Cal.App.4th 1172, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 718, 732 (1999). See also Copeland v. Baskin Robbins USA 96 Cal.App.4th 1251, 117 Cal. Rptr.2d 875, 884-85 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, under either theory, United was
holding that generally punitive damages are not available for a breach of contract holding damages for emotional distress are not recoverable in an action for breach of contract whether express or implied in the absence of a showing that the parties contemplated such damages at the time the contract was made holding that damages for a breach of contract to negotiate an agreement are measured by the injury suffered by the plaintiff in relying on the defendant to negotiate in good faith not by expectation damages holding that although some breach of contract damages were calculable specific damages for which grogan sought injunctive relief were intangibles incapable of being measured by damages holding that a contract must entitle the plaintiff to money damages in the event of the governments breach of that contract