Can an architect who wrongfully repudiated a contract for services sue for lost profits rather than for damages?

In Lodder v. Slowey, supra, an architect’s contract for services was wrongfully repudiated by the owner. At p. 453 of the report the court stated that the architect could elect to treat the contract as terminated and sue for work and labour done instead of suing for damages. This was a critical ruling in that case, as there was no evidence before the court as to the amount of profit lost by the wrongful termination of the contract. That being so, the plaintiff could not have recovered any damages for lost profits and was thus forced to claim on a quantum meruit basis.