The court will first examine the contract itself. The court will determine what was promised and by whom. The court will evaluate the terms of the contract. The court also decides whether there is an offence and, if so, when. If there is no infringement, the plaintiff is not entitled to damages. The question of what is appropriate is particularly controversial in cases of bodily injury where the applicant refuses medical advice. This can be seen in cases such as Janiak v. Ippolito.  The antonym of attenuation is aggravation. If a plaintiff has been harmed by the defendant`s negligence, the plaintiff is required to take reasonable steps to mitigate the plaintiff`s damages.
If the plaintiff does not mitigate its damages and the defendant proves that it did not take reasonable steps to reduce its losses after the injury, the court will reduce the plaintiff`s damages by the amount that the plaintiff could have avoided or mitigated. „Reasonably avoided“ has no specific definition, but generally means what a reasonable person would do in similar circumstances. If a person is required to mitigate the damages, and they do not, the courts will generally reduce their damages by the amount they could have mitigated. The defendant has the burden of proving that the plaintiff did not mitigate the damage and must prove that the plaintiff could have avoided additional costs and damages, such as not receiving medical care or surgery to prevent future injury. The defendant need only prove, by „predominating the evidence“, that he did not reduce the costs or losses that he could reasonably have avoided. The duty to mitigate damages has traditionally been most often used in the areas of tort and contract law. In a breach case, the other party is required to mitigate the damage upon receipt of notice that a party does not intend to perform, meaning that it must make reasonable efforts to avoid further losses due to the breach. The duty to mitigate damages was exemplified in contract law in Luten Bridge Co. v. Rockingham County, where Rockingham County engaged Luten Bridge Co.
to build a bridge. After that, the county agreed not to proceed with the construction of the bridge and informed Luten to stop construction of the bridge. However, Luten continued the construction and then filed a lawsuit for damages for breach of contract by the county. The court ruled that Luten was obliged to stop construction and that a contractor could not continue working on a project and increase the damages caused by the breach of contract. Damage mitigation has also been invoked in the area of property law. For example, if a tenant terminates their lease, a landlord is required to mitigate the damage caused by the offending tenant. In this case, the mitigation doctrine imposes an obligation on the landlord to try to find a new tenant and re-rent the property. As above, if a person suffers damage as a result of a breach of contract, he or she is required by law to minimize the effects and losses resulting from the breach. The purpose of the obligation to mitigate damages is to refuse to reimburse a portion of the damage that could reasonably have been avoided. For example, imagine a tenant who signs an agreement to rent a house for a year, but moves out after only a month (and stops paying the rent). The landlord may be able to sue the tenant for breach of contract: however, the landlord must mitigate the damage by making a reasonable effort to find a replacement tenant for the rest of the year. The landlord cannot simply leave the house empty for eleven months and then sue the tenant for eleven months` rent.
 Mitigation in law is the principle that a party who has suffered damage (in tort or breach of contract) must take reasonable steps to minimize the amount of damage suffered. As stated by the Federal Court of Appeal of Canada in Redpath Industries Ltd. v. Cisco (The), „it is generally accepted that a party who suffers damage as a result of a breach of contract is required to mitigate that damage, which means that the infringer cannot be held liable for paying avoidable losses that would result in an increase in the amount of damages payable to the injured party.“ The burden of proof of the failure to mitigate damages lies with the defendant. The obligation to mitigate damages will almost always be raised when determining your right to compensation. A local business lawyer can help you explain the law and your rights and prove that the plaintiff has not reduced or decreased their damages. In addition, a lawyer can provide advice on what to do to maintain your claim. If a victim does not mitigate the harm, the court may refuse to award exorbitant harm that the victim could reasonably have avoided. The court evaluates the victim`s actions after the breach of contract to determine whether they took steps that a reasonable person would have taken in similar circumstances to minimize their losses. However, mitigation does not require the victim to take extreme measures or make significant sacrifices to avoid or minimize losses. Mitigation is a contract law concept that requires a victim in a contract dispute to minimize damages resulting from a breach of contract. This means that the victim is required by law to act in a manner that mitigates both the effects of the violation and his or her own personal loss, and even though the victim who suffers personal harm through no fault of his or her own is obliged to take reasonable steps to avoid further losses and minimize the consequences of the harm.
The court then assesses the damages by examining whether the contract has been partially performed.