Limits on Damages

Question 1

What are the limits on damages

Answer 1

Betterment, mental distress, no punitive damages, must be causation, date of assessing losses, mitigation

Question 2

Bloxham on betterment

Answer 2

B could not argue loss of income from his previous job after attaining a dental practice that was worth $69k less than his payment. Expectation loss was already given for that sum so there cannot be a double recovery

Question 3

What is betterment

Answer 3

Victim cannot end up in a better position than they would have been if there had been no breach. This includes a rule against double recovery:

Question 4

What is the rule against damages for mental distress

Answer 4

generally they will not be awarded but in Jarvis v Swan Tours the purpose was mental enjoyment on a ski tour but it was shit.

Question 5

Punitive?

Answer 5

We are not looking to punish the defendant

Question 6

causation/remoteness

Answer 6

You should not be responsible for any loss that is unforeseeable from that kind of contractual breach

Question 7

Hadley v Baxendale

Answer 7

slow delivery of repaired machinery needed for mill operation meant they had to shut for 5 days. Not foreseeable was not communicated by innocent party that it was urgent

Question 8

Rule in Hadley v Baxendale

Answer 8

Test for types of accepted foreseeable loss (Hadley v Baxendale)

1. Direct and natural loss: where loss arises fairly and reasonably naturally in the usually course that would arise from that kind of breach
2. Loss ‘reasonably’ within contemplation of parties at time of contracting
   ○ Look at D’s
   § Awareness of P’s intended use of the subject
   § Expertise
   § Opportunity and ability to negotiate the risk
   § The parties ability to estimate the extent of the risk

Question 9

Victoria Laundry

Answer 9

delivery of boiler was 5 months late, V claimed loss from normal business and profits from dyeing contract. Loss of ordinary business was foreseeable as the defendants had industry knowledge and it had been communicated to them. Loss of profits from dyeing contract were not foreseeable as this was not made known to him

Question 10

rule for date of assessing loss

Answer 10

General rule damages for breach are assessed by the actual loss at the time of breach.

• Bunge v Nidera: contract for sale of wheat to Russia. Russia announced embargo on wheat. Seller repudiated before the embargo was put in place
• Damages were awarded up until the embargo would have occurred, not when the party breached as this was more just and put party in same position they would have been

Question 11

Rule for mitigation

Answer 11

There is a duty on the innocent party to take reasonable steps to mitigate loss caused by breaching party’s breach.

1. Defendant must prove P’s failure to mitigate (Walop)
   
   • Courts are reluctant to find that p did not mitigate
   • Walop v Para:
2. Buyer must take reasonable steps to mitigate