duty are ripe. Proof of actual damages is not an element of Tribune Publishing’s breach of contract claim. See, e.g., Nappe v. Anschelewitz, Barr, Ansell & Bonello, 97 N.J. 37, 477 A.2d 1224, 1228 (1984). “[W]henever there is a breach of contract, ... the law ordinarily infers that damage ensued, and, in the absence of actual damages, the law vindicates the right by awarding nominal damages.” Id. A “breach of a contract is per se a legal injury from which some damage will be inferred, and, in the absence of proof of actual damage arising from such breach, the plaintiff is entitled to nominal damages.” Car & Gen. Ins. Corp. v. Davimos, 12 N.J. Misc. 569, 173 A. 150, 151 (1934), aff'd, 114 N.J.L. 192, 176 A. 320 (1935); see also Culver v. Dziki, 123 N.J.L. 66, 8 A.2d 51, 52 (1939) (<HOLDING>). Thus, Tribune Publishing need not allege
holding that plaintiff was not entitled to a presumption of nominal damages when she had failed to request them holding that the right to nominal damages was waived in a breach of duty action when plaintiff failed to raise the issue of nominal damages until after the verdict holding that the plaintiff was entitled to nominal damages in a breach of contract regarding a fire appraisal holding that plaintiff waived the right to nominal damages in an excessive force case because nominal damages were not requested until after the verdict holding that when plaintiff has proven injury but has failed to prove the amount of damages the plaintiff is only entitled to nominal damages