out a plan to reopen each restaurant, and (b) that Wendy’s would earn more profits from operating company-owned restaurants than it would have earned from WenAmerica’s continuing operation of the restaurants as a franchisee. We “refuse to engage in the kind of speculative guessing ... [required] to try to value a claim without a showing that it eventually led to actual, and thus, quantifiable savings.” Groupo Condumex, S.A. v. SPX Corp., No. 3:99CV7316, 2008 WL 4372678, at *9, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82269, at *30 (N.D.Ohio Sept. 19, 2008). Furthermore, any future profits enjoyed by Wendy’s would be due to its own efforts, not to Saverin’s breach. See Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Summa Corp., No. 1607, 1986 WL 5671, at *13, 1986 Del. Ch. LEXIS 420, at *38-39 (Del. Ch. May 15, 1986) (<HOLDING>). We thus conclude that Saverin is not entitled
holding where the plaintiff presented evidence which demonstrates that the terms alleged by the defendants to be indefinite were in fact sufficiently well delineated to all parties the entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of the defendants was inappropriate despite the fact that the defendants contested the plaintiffs evidence concerning the manner in which the relevant contractual language should be construed holding that the plaintiffs liability to the defendant was absolved as a result of the bankruptcy order and the defendants were barred from collecting debts from property of the plaintiffs holding that a contract must entitle the plaintiff to money damages in the event of the governments breach of that contract holding that although the defendants breach allowed the plaintiff to follow a business plan that saved money years later the plaintiffs cost savings  were the result of its own efforts and offset was therefore inappropriate recognizing that where a plaintiff failed to perform because of the defendants breach the plaintiff could recover damages caused by the defendants breach