Remedies

    Cards (13)

    • Robinson v Harman says the purpose of compensatory damages is to put C in the same financial position they would've been in if contract was performed
    • Hadley v Baxendale gives the two types of losses (normal and special). Remoteness for normal is if it was foreseeable and for special it is if D knew of the circumstances and the loss it would cause
    • Thompson v Robinson shows expectation loss and when it works as C got the full cost
    • Charter v Sullivan shows when expectation loss fails
    • Anglia TV v Reed shows reliance loss when expectation loss cant be calculated
    • Farley v Skinner shows reliance loss can cover loss of pleasure
    • Jackson v Horizon Holidays shows C can only claim damages for mental distress if the purpose of the contract was pleasure
    • ParkingEye v Beavis shows liquidated damages (contract specifying an amount of damages but could be penalty) and the test for whether its a penalty. this test is if it protects a legitimate interest and isn't an exorbitant amount
    • Thai Airways v KI Holdings shows C should try to mitigate their losses
    • White and Cater v McGregor shows always allowed to sue for anticipatory breach
    • Beswick v Beswick shows equitable remedies are used when damages aren't adequate
    • Page One Records shows injunctions cant be used if it would amount to specific performance, unfair to make them work together and hard to supervise over long period
    • Walters v Morgan shows specific performance cannot be used if C acted inequitably
    See similar decks