The court had to determine whether the defendants were informed of the plaintiffdecision to remodel and spend extra money due to the sofa not being exactly the way it wasrequested by plaintiff.A logical correlative of this rule is that the compensation awarded shouldnot provide the plaintiff was a windfall recoveryBowes v. Sakes & Co. (7thcir. 1968), 397 F.2d113). The furnishing of goods or services and defendant breaches by the defective performance,the measure of damages is the cost of remedying the deficiencies.Litwin v. Timbercrest Estates,Inc(1976), 37 Ill. App. 3d 576, 281 N.E.2d 398).The defendant stated that "once upholstery work has started it is almost impossible forthe sofa to be returned to its original condition."The appellate court found that based on the facts presented the extra cost the plaintiffspent redecorating the space where sofa was should not be included on the evidence due to thedefendant not being made aware of the accrued expense