Lam entered into contracts with Dallas Semiconductor to build six machines, referred to in its contracts as Tools A-F.
The contracts were entered into in 2000 and in 2001, but Maxim Integrated acquired Dallas Semiconductor in 2001. The employees at Dallas who were in charge of the contracts continued to assure Lam that everything was on track. Lam representatives also had meetings with Maxim representatives. However, those discussions broke down and after Lam issued a demand letter for which there was no response, he filed suit for breach of contract. Lam was able to sell the machines to other customers for an equal or greater price. Lam asked for total damages in the amount of $13,860,847, representing lost profits on all six tools, plus lost profits on the extended warranties and training packages for the tools. Is Lam entitled to such recovery? [Lam Research Corp. v Dallas Semiconductor Corp., 2006 WL 1000573, 59 UCC Rep Serv 2d 716 (Cal App 2006) (Cal App)]