The second ground of decision is that the rule denying a recovery is unjust in that its effect is to enable the defendant to retain a sum in excess of adequate compensatory damages for the plaintiff's breach. In the words of the court,1 the defendant "may receive much more by the breach of the contract, than the injury which he has sustained by such breach, and more than he could be entitled to were he seeking to recover damages by an action."
This is perhaps the strongest argument that can be urged against the rule. But when it is remembered that the plaintiff's position is the direct consequence of a willful and inexcusable violation of his legal and moral duty to the defendant, it is difficult to feel that the result complained of is harsh or unjust. Better far that the innocent defendant should profit by the breach than that the guilty plaintiff should be given a remedy in spite of it. Moreover, even if some hardship to the plaintiff were conceded, the argument, it is submitted, would be distinctly outweighed by the consideration that the denial of relief must have a salutary effect in discouraging the willful breach of contractual obligations.