Which of the following outcomes is NOT a purpose of awarding damages in a breach of contract?

The primary purpose of awarding damages in a breach of contract is to financially compensate the injured party for losses incurred due to the breach. This compensation aims to restore the party to the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. This means covering direct financial losses, such as lost profits and other related costs.

While options such as compensating for financial losses, restoring lost profits, and placing the parties in a position as if the contract was fulfilled align with this compensatory framework, the option that suggests punishing the breaching party diverges from the fundamental objectives of contract law. In contract disputes, the focus is on compensation rather than punishment. This punitive approach aligns more closely with tort law, where damages may be awarded to deter wrongful conduct.

Thus, the outcome associated with punishing the breaching party does not fit within the standard framework of contractual remedies, making it the option that does not serve as a purpose of awarding damages in the context of breach of contract.