remedies Flashcards
(25 cards)
Robinson v Harmon
Parke B; the rule of common law is where a party sustains a loss by reason of breach of contract, as far as money can do it, be placed in the same situation as if the contract had been performed
Durkan New Homes v Minister for Environment
Charleton J; the claimant’s position is not to be made better than it would have been had the contract not been broken, it is simply to provide an estimation of what the situation would have been had the contract been performed
Leahy v Rawson
held remoteness draws a line to what damages can be sought based on what was reasonably considered by the parties when they entered the
contract
Victoria Laundry v Newman Industries
P had purchased a boiler for immediate use, D knew this however there was a significant delay resulting in lost profits and a particularly lucrative contract, held the party was entitled to lost profits under limb (1) however they could not recover for the contract as this required knowledge of special circumstances outside the ordinary course of things and thus must be brought to the attention of the party at the time of entering the contract
Heron II
P had contracted with the D for the shipping of sugar which was delayed, held D were liable for loss of profits as they should have known, given the nature of the business, they intended to sell it straight away
Transfield Shipping v Meercator Shipping
a ship which was delayed in returning for over a week was required to pay damages to P for loss of profits but was not liable for the reduced cost of a lucrative contract because of the delay as D had no knowledge of this
Hawkins v Rogers
breach of contract resulted in horse missing races, q was how could the court calculate expectation loss if a win was not guaranteed, court looked at the average performance of the horse to calculate the expectation loss
Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth
R agreed to build swimming pool @ certain height, built a small bit less, P sued for damages for rebuilding swimming pool @ correct height, court awarded sum to remedy the defect only as awarding damages to re-build the whole pool was disproportionate
Anglia Television v Reed
D actor pulled out of contract to make a movie, P incurred significant expenditure in prep for movie both before and after the contract was entered into, expectation loss inestimable bc impossible to know how successful film would be, damages awarded to compensate for losses incurred on relying on the contract - hiring set, other actors etc.
Jarvis v Swan Tours
D booked package holiday, perks of holiday never materialised, Denning L awarded losses for enjoyment, damages can be awarded for contracts for a holiday, to provide entertainment and enjoyment, if a party breaks the contract, damages can be awarded for disappointment, distress, upset and frustration caused by the breach
Dinnegan v Ryan
P claimed D orally agreed to provide a buffet @ wedding reception, wedding party was turned away when they arrived, awarded damages for emotional distress and disappointment
Murray v Budds
P claimed his solicitor failed to represent him properly @ trial causing him worry & stress, held no claim for worry or stress in contract law unless it falls with the existing circs laid out in Jarvis
Rosberg Partners v LK Shields
LK Shields failed to register a property which resulted in Rosberg missing out on a €10m sale, HC awarded
11 million in damages but this was halved in the SC who held there were 2 other main causes of the loss 1) the economic downturn; 2) failure to mitigate their losses in 2006 where the property was offered to be bought for €6m
Hyland v Dundalk Racing
CA reversed an award of damages to bookmakers, case involved protracted litigation re bookmakers & their entitlement to spots on Dundalk racecourse via ‘Pitch Rules’ when it was taken over by new management, held the bookmakers failed to mitigate their losses by not paying the €8,000 Dundalk offered to have a pitch and commencing proceedings to have the contractual situation clarified, bookmakers
opened themselves, and Dundalk, to substantial claims of financial loss which could have been avoided
Hyland NB point
P who refuses a reasonable offer which would have the effect of avoiding unnecessary losses proceeds at considerable risk, especially where the offer does not require him to forego rights claimed arising from the
breach. Such P may be refused damages he might otherwise be awarded
Brace v Calder
partner was fired and subsequently offered his job back twice which he refused and then sought damages for wrongful dismissal, court refused on the basis he had failed to mitigate his losses.
McCauley v Horgan
where there is a non-delivery of goods, the party must accept the delivery is not coming and seek an alternative in order to avoid extra loss
Cullen v Horgan
held if products are not delivered, the party must mitigate its losses by ordering substitutes.
Twoomey v Murphy
a clause which provided a construction worker would pay £5 every day the construction is finished after its due date was considered a liquidated damages clause and therefore enforceable
Enright
the courts view such clauses as an abuse of power ‘akin to Shylock’s demand for a pound of flesh.
ACC Bank v Friends First
Finlay Geoghegan J held while the courts are reluctant to interfere with parties equal bargaining power, the penalty clause is one exception
Cavendish
a clause which provided for non-competition was deemed not to be a penalty clause and was a typical commercial clause
Parking Eye
a clause which provided an 85-pound penalty for leaving car in space over designated period was not
considered a penalty clause. There was substantial notice of the clause and moreover the innocent party had a legitimate interest in having such a clause adhered to.
Flynn/Sheehan v Breccia
a key q was whether a lender was entitled to include surcharge interest in the amount required to redeem a loan, HC applied Dunlop principles and held the default interest clause was a blunt provision that took no account of the variables that could affect the amount of the lender’s likely loss thus could not be a genuine pre-estimate, appeal to asked the court whether the Irish law principles should be considered in light of the English law developments, CA held in 2018 the law in Ireland remains at present unchanged as Dunlop has been endorsed by the SC
