[Hypothetical Narrative] After much recent career industry success, a local entrepreneur "Alpha" wished to sell his/her/their $3 million three-bedroom home in Santa Monica, California and purchase a new six-bedroom and guest house Berkeley estate costing $10 million. To sell his/her/their old house, Alpha entered into a residential real estate sales agreement (the Sales Agreement) with "Omega", a reasonably well-to-do novice in purchasing real estate.

Along with other language, the parties' signed, written contract contained the following language printed in a separate paragraph of large, bold type and separately initialed by Alpha and Omega (as required by state law):

IF EITHER PARTY BREACHES THIS AGREEMENT BY PREVENTING OR FAILING TO COMPLETE THE SALE/PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY WITHOUT PROPER JUSTIFICATION OR EXCUSE UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, THE NON-BREACHING PARTY SHALL BE PAID THE SUM OF FIFTY THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($50,000.00).

Omega was so anxious to purchase Alpha's home, because, despite the recent general downturn of the Southern California real estate market, interest rates had been rising and homes north of Montana Avenue in Santa Monica had continued to appreciate in value; Omega was afraid of being priced out of the market.

Even so, at the time that Alpha and Omega executed the Sales Agreement, largely due to political uncertainties surrounding neighborhood preservation and Building Department refusals to grant building permits for large new Mini-Mansions (houses with thousands of square feet of space built close to the property lines) on smaller lots, there was uncertainty in the market for these Santa Monica homes. Therefore, it was extremely difficult, if not impossible, to predict what might happen to the marketability and/or sale price of Alpha's old home over the next year.

Nevertheless, most residential real estate agreements provided for forfeiture of the buyers initial deposit (frequently between one per cent (1%) and five per cent (5%) of the total sale price, if the buyer reneged on the sale without good cause.

Not more than a week after signing the Sales Agreement, Omega completely changed his mind, moving to frigid Greenland for his health. Omega gave Alpha notice of his intent not to complete the purchase of Alpha's Santa Monica home.

Based on Omega's clear breach of contract, Alpha [through his real estate agent] threatened Omega with legal action to collect his actual damages, which Alpha indicated would be at least $95,000.

[Scenario]

Fortunately for Alpha, just days after Omegas breach of contract, Alphas broker received a back-up offer from "Beta" to purchase Alphas Santa Monica house for $3.2 million ($200,000 more than Omega's had agreed to pay). Betas offer remained open, and Alpha could easily accept it and complete the sale of his house within the same time frame as if she had sold the house to Omega.

Assuming that Alpha will have an actual, provable gain of $200,000 following Omega's refusal to complete the purchase of his house under the Sales Agreement, will Alpha still be entitled to the payment of $50,000 (or more) from Omega:

If so, citing specific facts from the Narrative, please explain why Alpha is entitled to $50,000 (or more) from Omega, even though Alpha suffered no actual damagesand, in fact, made more money through Omega's breach of contract;

Or, if not, citing specific facts from the Narrative, please explain why Alpha is not entitled to $50,000 (or any other sum) from Omega, in particular, considering the bold-faced contract language that both parties clearly acknowledged

[?]