How&#39;d parties &#39;negotiate around the remedy&#39; to &#39;share the profits (or savings) from breach rather than allow the contract breaker total retention&#39;?
<p>Mindy Chen-Wishart. <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Contract-Law-Mindy-Chen-Wishart/dp/0198806353/ref=dp_ob_title_bk" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Contract Law</em> (2018 6 edn)</a>. p 24.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/5ZPSj.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/5ZPSj.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>
</blockquote>

<p>I don't understand the red sentence. Kindly can someone</p>

<ol>
<li><p>expatiate it?</p></li>
<li><p>or give an example with numbers?  </p></li>
</ol>

<blockquote>
  <p>Kindly can someone</p>
  
  <p>expatiate it?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>That book is poorly written. Apparently the author's point is that, when a party incurs breach of contract, negotiating --and reaching a settlement-- is more beneficial than seeking a strict or full enforcement of remedies for the breach as provided in the contract.</p>

<p>This makes sense even from the injured party's perspective. That is because breacher is likelier to dispute and obstruct remedies if the full extent thereof is sought by the counterparty. Accordingly, breacher's resistance is likelier to result in litigation, whence also the injured party would inevitably incur expenses.</p>

<p>The author does not really define the odd term "<em>contract-breaker full retention</em>", but from the example on <a href="https://books.google.es/books?id=Vb66BwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA24&amp;lpg=PA24&amp;dq=%22total%20retention%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=OtTyDI_8Iz&amp;sig=ACfU3U1vtN2JefQE4K9ZjvRifdA8o6k7eQ&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwi7pdD11rXlAhWsxIUKHd9fAUAQ6AEwAHoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%22total%20retention%22&amp;f=false" rel="nofollow noreferrer">page 313</a> (well past page 24) it appears that the term means the full extent of remedies available in the event of breach of contract.</p>

contract-law england-and-wales