This is a Remedies for Breach of Contract question.

Provisions in theArticle 39ofRestatement are not legally binding unless and until they are adopted in a particular jurisdiction.

Commentators have described section 39's adoption as the equivalent of a "quiet revolution" that "is breathtaking in its potential transformation of the traditional contractual landscape." Caprice L. Roberts,Restitutionary Disgorgementas a Moral Compass for Breach of Contract, 77 U. Cin. L. Rev 991, 993 (2009).What is so revolutionary about this provision that it should be expanded in jurisdictions?How does it differ from the traditional approach to contract damages as described in Contracts in a Nutshell, Remedies?