Topic 1 - common law remedies Flashcards
.chaplin v hicks (1911)
- vaughan williams LJ: it is impossible to recover any damages for the loss of the chance or opportunity of winning the prize…But the fact that damages cannot be assessed with certainty does not relieve the wrong-doer of the necessity of paying damages for his breach of contract
- Claimant lost the opportunity to make it onto a show as she was not informed of the interview time. Courts said that D did not take the reasonable means to give plaintiff an opportunity at presenting herself for selection.
chaplin won £100
.Hadley v Baxendale 1854
- Damages that are recoverable for a breach of contract are those that arise naturally from the breach or were reasonably foreseeable by the parties at the time the contract was made.
- If the damages were within the contemplation of the parties when the contract was formed, then they are recoverable.
- If the damages were special and not foreseeable, they are not recoverable unless the parties had communicated those special circumstances to each other at the time the contract was made.
- rank shaft of the steam engine used by H in their mills had broken, rendering the mill unworkable. H contracted with B for B to deliver the broken shaft to an engineering firm to be used as the model for a new one. H told B that the shaft had to be sent immediately and B promised to deliver it the next day. B were unaware that the mill was unworkable without a new shaft. B delivered the shaft seven days after receiving it. H claimed B’s negligence caused the mill to be inoperable for an additional five days and sought damages covering the resulting loss of profits and payment of wages.
Decisions:
H was awarded damages by the jury in excess of the amount paid into court. £300
remoteness test in hadley v baxendale
what def must be taken to have in contemplation, not specifically what was actually contemplated.
- Contracting party is liable for loss if either:
limb 1. arise naturally according to usual course of things (objective) or limb 2. that may reasonably be in the contemplation of the parties when the contract was made.(subjective).
.victoria laundry ltd v newman industries 1949
Facts: VL wanted to extend business and required larger boiler, contracted with NI to purchase a boiler then installed on defs premises and delivery arranged on 05/06. Boiler dismantled by third parties (contracted with def, NI) the boiler rolled over and sustained damage and delivery was delayed until 08/11. for breach of contract the plaintiffs claimed to include in their damages their loss of business profits. Def aware of nature of VL business but had been informed by letter that boiler was to be used in shortest time possible. The boiler, he said, was not a whole plant capable of being used by itself as a profit-making machine.
- Knowledge “possessed” is of two kinds; one imputed, the other actual. Everyone, as a reasonable person, is taken to know the “ordinary course of things” and consequently what loss is liable to result from a breach of contract in that ordinary course. This is the subject matter of the “first rule” in Hadley v. Baxendale
Decision of courts/Held:
Def knew nature of the plaintiffs’ business, having promised delivery by a particular date of a large and expensive plant, so could not reasonably contend that they could not foresee that loss of business profit
remoteness definition
reasonably foreseeable as liable to result
.payzu v saunders
facts: Contract for sale of goods by def to plaintiffs provided delivery required during a period of nine months. Plaintiffs weren’t punctual first payment and def believed failure was due to lack of means and didn’t deliver more of goods under contract but offered to deliver at contract price plaintiffs agree to pay cash at time of orders.
Plaintiffs rejected and the market price of the goods having risen, brought an action against the defendant for breach of contract, claiming as damages the difference between the market price and the contract price
Decisions of court/held:
plaintiffs’ failure to make punctual payment for the first instalment did not in the circumstances show an intention to repudiate the whole contract, and that the defendant was liable for damages; but def should have mitigated loss by accepting def offer.
held that the plaintiff had permitted himself to sustain a large measure of the loss which, as prudent and reasonable people, they ought to have avoided. Not entitled to damages because should have accepted offered price than go to market and buy one at a higher price
.charter v sullivan
facts: def failed to accept a car contracted to buy from charter
- charter sold car for same price to another purchaser, retail price set by manufacturer
- plaintiff claimed loss of profit on the sale and Plaintiff claimed loss of profit on the repudiated sale; evidence showing demand for the type of car exceeded supply which charter could obtain
- plaintiff failed to prove loss from breach court held and entitled to nominal damages only
.thompson v robinson
Facts:
Estate sold and proceeds divided equally between his surviving nephews and nieces. In his will, designated A and B (greatnephew and great niece) as nephew and nieces. Held, that A and B did not participate in the proceeds.
Nephews and nieces was interpreted literally. Man had 5 nephews and nieces and 17 greatnephews and nieces
testator had, by designating these two persons as his nephew and niece, put a clear construction on those words, and explained his own meaning and intention when subsequently using them.
Held:
Master of the Rolls [Sir John Romilly] was of opinion that it could not be inferred, from the erroneous description of the two named individuals in one part of a will, that they were intended to be included in another gift to a class to which they do not properly belong. That there being persons to whom the words “nephews and nieces” were properly applicable, the class could not be extended.
He decided that the five surviving nephews and nieces were alone entitled.
achilleas
Facts:
Charterer (D) was bound to redeliver the ship to the ship owner (C) on 2 May, but delivered it late on 11 May. Owners had entered into a follow-on time charter with a third party beginning on 8 May, which due to the delay had to be renegotiated to a lower price due to fall in market price. C sued for the difference in price of $8000 daily for the whole period of the new follow-on charter which comes up to $1.3m.
Decisions of the court/Held:
D accepted liability only for the difference between price during the overrun period from 3 May to 11 May, amounting to $158,000. Arbitrators found for C on the basis that the loss was foreseeable under Hadley v Baxendale, although it was against the market expectations of the parties that D be liable for such loss
The majority (Lords Hoffman, Rodger and Walker) decided it on the ground that D did not assume responsibility for any loss beyond the overrun period
The minority (Lord Rodger and Baroness Hale) held that loss beyond the overrun period was not reasonably foreseeable
Test of assumption of responsibility in Achilleas
Whether responsibility for the types of loss was assumed depends on whether:
- the loss is significant for the purposes of the risk undertaken: [22] Departure from the ordinary foreseeability rule will be unusual but more common in contracts certain industries such as banking and shipping due to general market expectations:
- Whether responsibility for the types of loss was assumed depends on whether the loss is significant for the purposes of the risk undertaken: [22].
ruxley electronics v forsyth
Ruxley built a pool that was six inches shallower than it was supposed to. Forsyth sued for a cost of cure of £21,560 but he had only initially spent £17,797 and the value of his property and pool had not been affected. He was awarded £2,500 for ‘loss of amenity’ as the original ask was ‘wholly disproportionate’ to the actual loss
Held/Decisions of court:
Forsyth could not recover the cost of re-building because this would be totally out of proportion to the loss he had suffered. He could recover £2,500 for loss of amenity but the law must cater for cases where full performance of the promise would vastly exceed the loss which had truly been suffered. The pool was, in fact, worth no less because of the breach but to award nothing would render the contractual promise illusory, and so a nominal award was appropriate.
cost of cure meaning
amount of money it would cost someone to pay someone else to complete the unfinished or defective performance
nominal dmaages meaning
usually just a couple of pounds awarded by court to signify that there has been a breach of contract but no loss/ or loss proven
planche v colburn
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff was to write a book on ‘Costume and Ancient Armour’ for a series, and was to receive £100 on completion of the book. After he had done the necessary research but before the book had been written, the publishers abandoned the series. He claimed alternatively on the original contract and on a quantum meruit.
Decisions/held:
The court held that: (a) the original contract had been discharged by the defendants’ breach; (b) no new contract had been substituted; and (c) the plaintiff could obtain 50 guineas as reasonable remuneration on a quantum meruit.
This claim was independent of the original contract and was based on quasi-contract.
wrotham park estate v parkside
Facts of the Case:
Houses were built in breach of a restrictive covenant but did not devalue the neighboring property in any way. The injunction to have the properties demolished was dismissed based on ‘unpardonable waste’, damages were awarded in its place.
Held:
Morris-Garner v One clarified that such awards are compensatory rather than restitutionary - ‘negotiating damages’
