Joe and Bob enter into a contract whereby Bob promises to sell Joe his house. Bob later refuses to sell the house. Joe brings a cause of action against Bob for breach of contract and only alleges that he has lost the fee he paid his real estate broker. A jury determines that Bob is liable. Two years later, Joe brings a cause of action against Bob for monetary damages he sustained when Bob refused to sell Joe his home, thereby breaching the contract. The specific damages Joe alleges in the second action are moneys he had to expend canceling his moving contract. Bob asserts the doctrine of res judicata. How is the court likely to rule?