damages Flashcards
quantification of damages
expectation loss = aim to put claimant in position they would be if contract = performed
reliance loss = aim to put claimant in position they were before contract made
anglia television v reed - TV company (A) planned to make firm and signed actor (B) to star, B signed contract but breach in contract - film not made - A = recover money spent on movie (reliance) not profits (expectation)
exceptions to quantification of damages
bad bargain rule - if claimant wouldve made loss from contract - only entitled to claim reliance loss
losses are too speculative e.g. difficult to assess how much profit movie wouldve made
market price rule - measuring expectation loss - contract price minus market price = damages for loss
cost of cure - measuring expectation loss - claimants may have wanted performance of contract for subjective reasons , often involve market value of performance of contract
ruxley electronics and constuction ltd v forsyth - in breach of contract B made swimming pool 9 inches too shallow, wouldve costed 1/3 of price of pool to amend, party A’s value of land remains same regardless of depth, and isnt intending on rebuilding to required length - not entitled to cost of cure damages
loss of chance - measuring expectation loss: chaplin v hicks - national singign competition , if make to final round informed via email or phone, B = not informed (breach) and absence of final round - B = entitled to damages assessed according to chance of her winning - 1/4 chance
awarding damages - when not stipulated in task
causation: must be causal link between loss or entitled party cannot get damages - breach of contract must be effective cause for loss
quinn v burch bros (builders) ltd - B failed to supply a step ladder to A - A instead uses an unfooted trestle to climb up the side of a building - falls - A’s unreasonable conduct breaks causation - no damages for his injury
duty to mitigate
claimant must take steps to reduce losses, he cannot claim damages for losses which which he couldve reasonably have avoided - burden of proof = on defendant that claimant didnt mitigate loss
brace v calder - def = partnership between 4 members and agreed to employ claimant as manager of branch - 2 partners retire and partnership auto. dissolved - rehire claimant on same conditions and salary - claimant rejected and breach contract - unreasonbaly rejected offer so hadnt mitigated the loss
equitable remedies - courts have discretion
damages not always adequate remedy
remedy for specific performance - court order which compels someone to perform the contract - norm when damages alone = inadequate - not used when hardhsip or unfairness
not available for contracts of employment (slavery)
injunction: normally orders defendant not to particular thing
Warner bros inc v nelson - actress Bette Davis signed contract w/ WB and agreed not to work for another fim company for a year - despite this actress signed with english film and WB claimed injuction to stop actress
other common law remedies
restitiution - when unjust enrichment - separate from remedies and contract = normally void e.g. pay someone beforehand and not getting service - claim to get money back
Quantum meruit (services) / valebat (goods) based on restitution - planche v colburn - dont aim to compensate for loss but for performance given
action for agreed sum - directly enforces debt under contract, contracts norm specify price and if payment not paid party claim -knwon from beginning and stramline procedure
liquidated damages
amount of damages specified in contract - court only accept this sum if genuine attempt to assess losses, if not regarded as penalty clause and not enforced by courts
