Napier, I present the (second) restatement of the §351 and §352 contracts, as established in Fifth Third Bank v. United States., 518 F.3d 1368 (2008 ). According to the Fifth Third Bank case, “expectation damages for breach of contract are intended to cure the non-breaching party by providing the expected benefits that would have been received if the breach had not occurred” (2008). Restatement (Second) of Contracts §351 as interpreted in the Fifth Thirds Bank case, provides that a party is "entitled to expectancy damages for breach of contract if the party...demonstrates[s] that the damages sought were within the within the scope of reasonable foreseeability at the time of the conclusion of the contract, the party must demonstrate that the damages would not have occurred but for the breach, and the extent of the damages must be reasonably certain” (2008) Restatement (second) of contracts §352 as interpreted in the Fifth Thirds Bank case, establishes that "courts may consider post-breach evidence when determining damages for breach of contract in order to place the non-breaching party in the best possible" position as it would have been if the contract had been been executed”