Remedies Flashcards
Introduction
- Used to compensate claimant who has suffered because of defendants breach
- Includes non-performance, loss of profits, physical damage and harm
- Aims to put C back into their pre-contract position
- If loss is ‘too remote’ cannot be awarded
What is the first type of damages?
NOMINAL DAMAGES
- Awarded when no loss has been suffered (Staniforth v Lyall)
- Damages awarded for breach, not loss
- Wrothram park award (Wrothram park v parkside homes) : damages calculated based of what would have been reasonably negotiated between parties
- Only awarded if issues arise calculating C’s financial loss (Morris-Garner v One stop)
What is the second type of damages?
SPECULATIVE DAMAGES
- Situations which haven’t happened yet or are difficult to quantify (distress, humiliation, panic)
- Can’t usually be claimed for mental distress in commercial contract (Addis v The Gramophone)
- Can be awarded for mental distress if its pleasure based (Jackson v Horizon Holidays)
- Loss of amenity (Ruxley Electronics and Construction v Forsyth)
What are the third type of damages?
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
- Amount to be paid is already a term in contract
- Fair amount
- Cannot be extortionate or unreasonable
- Must be an accurate number otherwise it will be a penalty
(Parking eye v Beavis)
What is the fourth type of damages?
COMPENSATORY DAMAGES
1. Causation : CIF, did D factually cause breach?
- was the breach reasonably foreseeable and not too remote?
- But for test
(Monarch Steamship Co)
- Remoteness : was the breach foreseeable?
- if too remote not foreseeable
- helps identify if compensation is available
(Hadley v Baxendale) established the 2 part test
1. Common knowledge test (was the loss reasonably foreseeable)
2. Specific Knowledge test (did D know of the specific potential losses)
—-> further clarified in (Victoria Laundry v Newman Industries)
- Mitigation of losses
- Must mitigate all losses
- Doesn’t have to go to extraordinary lengths, just reasonable
- C may await for breach
(White and Carter v McGregor)
What is the first method of assessing how much to award in compensatory damages?
- QUANTUM MERUIT BASIS
- Paid for work done
- If no amount specified, reasonable amount given (URDC v Powell)
- If there is a new agreement will be rewarded on QM basis (Steven v Bromley)
- May claim when other party breaches contract or if innocent party is prevented from performing by the others actions (DeBarnady v Harling)
What is the second method in establishing how much to award in damages?
- LOSS OF BARGAIN
- Aims to put C back into pre-contract position
- Looks in difference of what was provided and what should have been provided
- Awarded on difference between contract price and price on market (Charter v Sullivan)
- May claim for profit they would have made but for the breach
- Loss of chance cannot be claimed for as its speculative (Chaplin v Hicks)
What is the third method in establishing how much to award in damages?
RELIANCE LOSS
- Allows C to claim as a result of contract not being performed OR for money spent in order for them to fulfill their side of agreement (Anglia TV v Reed)
What is the fourth method in establishing how much to award in damages?
- RESTITUTION
- Any payment made to D is given back to C
What is the first form of equitable remedies?
INJUNCTION
- Prohibits someone from interfering with the rights of another
1. Prohibitory : prevents someone from doing something
2. Interim : temporary
3. Mandatory : instructs party to do something
(Page One Record v Britton) - injunction not awarded as couldn’t force 2 parties to work together
(Shell v Lostock garage) - not awarded when unfair on D
(Lauritzencool v Lady Navigation) : may be used to prevent a future breach
What is the second form of equitable remedies?
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
- Instructs a party that they must do something
- Must be fair on both parties
- Unique situations / items
(Airport Industrial v Heathrow Airport) : judge refused to grant specific as it would have forced company into liquidation [unfair]
CAN BE GRANTED
- Damages are inadequate
- Damages would be nominal (Beswick v Beswick)
CAN’T BE GRANTED
- Vague
- Consideration given is nominal
- Unfair hardship on D (Patel v Ali)
- Personal services
- Used to take advantage of mistake D makes (Walters v Morgan)
What are the remedies under CRA 2015?
CONSUMER
- s.20 right to reject
- s.23 : repair/replace
- s.24 : price reduction
TRADER
- Retain goods until buyer pays
- Insolvency : seller has right to regain possession even if in transit
