The remedy of expectancy damages in contract law is conventionally described as strict liability for breach. Parties sometimes stipulate damages in advance, and may agree that the damages they stipulate shall be the exclusive remedy for breach. This chapter advances two claims. First, that the familiar expectation remedy is correctly understood to involve elements of fault. There is litigation over the question of fault with respect to the mitigation of damages. Stipulation, on the other hand, makes contract liability stricter because it takes the mitigation question away from courts. Second, while law is generally described as being suspicious of, or even hostile to, stipulation, in fact, law encourages stipulation. It does this by sometimes declining to award expectancy damages, often in the very situations where stipulation seems sensible, and also by providing expectancy damages where the award of stipulated damages is regarded as a penalty. These two claims illuminate cases on such diverse matters as residential leases, construction contracts, product warranties, service contracts with liability waivers, and no-show customers and their service providers.