amount — 800 tonnes — not on the basis of a failure to supply
the higher amount of 1,200 tonnes.
 In the Open Window Bakery case, the supplier, Open
Window Bakery (“OWB”), was entitled under the terms of its
contract with a distributor, Hamilton, to terminate in several
ways, two of which were relevant on appeal: ( i) for cause; or
( ii) on three months’ notice, without cause, but only after the
19th month of the contractual term.
 The trial judge, as summarized by the Supreme Court, at
para. 7, “held that OWB wrongfully repudiated the contract and
awarded damages reflecting the payments that would have been
made under the full 36-month term of the contract, less an
allowance of 25 percent. The discount reflected the possibility
that OWB might at some later point have validly exercised its
right to terminate the contract with notice” (citations omitted).
 This court and the Supreme Court, however, held that
damages for OWB’s wrongful termination of the contract for
cause should be calculated on the basis of the three month’s
notice provision. The Supreme Court explained the rationale for
applying the minimum performance principle, at paras. 17-18:
[U]nder the general principle applicable in breach of contracts with alter-
native performances enunciated above, it is not necessary that the non-
breaching party be restored to the position they would likely, as a matter of
fact, have been in but for the repudiation. Rather, the non-breaching party
is entitled to be restored to the position they would have been in had the
contract been performed.
In this case, the relevant contractual duties have been expressly set out
by the parties in the agreement. Hamilton is entitled to OWB’s performance of these voluntarily assumed duties. Hamilton has no compensable
interest in the advantages she might have expected under any particular
performance of the contract, since the contract itself provided for alternative methods of performance at the election of the defendant. If Hamilton
wanted to secure herself the benefits associated with a given particular
method of performance, she should have contracted for only that method
(Emphasis in original)
 In Open Window Bakery, the Supreme Court acknowledged that “[t]he method of performance that is most advantageous or least costly for the defendant may not always be clear
at the outset from the contract’s terms”; as a result, “[a] court
may have to consider evidence to determine an estimated cost of
the various means of performance”: para. 21. The need for such
a factual inquiry, however, does not undermine the general principle: para. 21.