Topic 1 Common law Remedies

• Expectation interest


  Aim is to place the claimant in the position they would have been in if the contract had been performed
• Reliance interest


  Aim is to place the claimant in the position as though they had not relied on the contract
• Good bargain


  Situation where, if the defendant had performed as promised, the contract would have resulted in a favorable outcome for the claimant
• Bad bargain


  Situation where, even if the defendant performs as promised, the contract would still result in an unfavourable outcome for the claimant
• what is Loss of a chance and which case illistrates this?

  Damages for a loss of a chance/ opportunity which would potentially benefit the claimant had a contract been performed

  
  

  Chaplin v Hicks (1911),the claimant lost the chance to secure a place in a theatre chorus line due to the defendant's failure to inform her of the interview date. The court awarded her damages for the lost chance,
• The claimant needs to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that, had the defendant not breached the contract, the claimant would have been able to fulfil its part of the contract
• What is Remoteness of damages?

  A party to a contract is liable for losses that arise naturally from the breach of contract or that were reasonably foreseeable by both parties at the time of contracting as the probable result of the breach
• Serious possibility


  Favoured formulation for determining foreseeability in contract law, emphasizing an objective assessment of what the defendant must be taken to have contemplated
• If a particular type of loss is foreseeable, then the entirety of that type of loss is recoverable, regardless of its extent
• All contractual liability is voluntarily undertaken, and parties can be assumed to have voluntarily assumed the risk of foreseeable losses unless expressly excluded in the contract
• What is Mitigation of damages? Provide 2 cases

  Principle that requires the claimant to take reasonable steps to minimize their losses in the event of a breach

  Payzu v Saunders- Saunders delivered goods and Payzu would pay via cheque. Payment failed so saunders offered to accept cash. Payzu rejected and brought elsewhere and claimed difference. (failed because accepting cash decreased damages) 

  Charter v Sullivan- gained nominal damages after Sulivan backed out of agreement. Car could easily be sold so little loss
• In the case of British Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co. Ltd v Underground Electric Railways Co. of London Ltd (1912) claimant reasonably tries to mitigate their losses but ends up increasing them, they can still claim the increased loss
• Provide a brief description of the case of Robinson v Harman

  Subject matter was 21 year lease on a house but wanted to back out.

  Robinson recovered his losses through the loss of profits

  
  

  LP: outlined the Expectation interest
• How does the expectation measure differ in cases of bad bargains and good bargains?

  • In good bargains, the expectation measure tends to remain the same.
  • In bad bargains, the reliance measure may provide greater damage than in expectation measure. The reliance measure increases damages as it compensates the claimant for the loss due to the reliance.
• How do you determine whether to use the reliance measure over the expectation measure?

  specific circumstances of the case

  principles of fairness and justice
• Which cases illustrate the use the option to choose expectation and reliance measure is dependant on specific circumstances and principles?

  C. & P. Haulage v Middleton (1983)  CCC Films (London) Ltd v Impact Quadrant Ltd (1985). These cases underscore the importance of ensuring that damages awarded are fair and equitable, considering the actual loss suffered by the claimant because of the defendant's breach.
• Which case illustrate the use the option to choose expectation and reliance measure is dependant on specific circumstances and principles?


  ​​C. & P. Haulage v Middleton (1983)- Claimant moved to a  property which stated 'no removal to fixtures', they was wrongfully evicted and wasn't allowed to move the fixtured fixtures he put down. So claimed damages and won

  These cases underscore the importance of ensuring that damages awarded are fair and equitable, considering the actual loss suffered by the claimant because of the defendant's breach.
• What did the case of Omak Maritime v Mamola illustrate?

  claimant cannot choose the reliance measure of damages when the expectation measure would be less or a portion of the expectancy. because it would enable the claimant to shift a loss that would have been incurred regardless of the defendant's breach.

  Omak was about a Claimants ability to relet a ship at a higher rate but the charterers repudiated the contain so sought reliance interest on the ship because the expectation damage was nothing.
• What is the treshold for establishing a degree of likelihood required for loss of a chance? Name 2 cases which reflect this?

  The threshold for establishing the degree of likelihood required for loss of a chance is a "substantial, and not merely a speculative, chance" of the benefit being conferred

  Allied Maples Group Ltd v Simmons & Simmons (1995)- AMG contracted SS to investigate liabilities of company take overs, the risk materialised and won

  Jackson v RBS (2005
• Which cases are related to Remoteness in a contract?


  Hadley v Baxendale (1854)- loss of profit from delay from delivering crankshaft at mill. Determined a party is liable for losses that arise from breach on contract if it was reasonably foreseeable at the time of the breach. (not liable in the end)

  Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd (1949)- Boiler arrived late causing loss contract from the gov.
• What did Victoria Laundry establish?

  Boiler arrived late causing loss contract from the gov.Case established 2 divisions of foreseeability, one dealing with losses that any reasonable person could foresee, and the other addressing losses that are foreseeable given the defendant's special knowledge. Could recover ordinary profits not contract
• What was the principle behind Thompson (WL) Ltd v Robinson (Gunmakers) Ltd ?

  LP: Mitigation

  Car was readily available but exceeded demand. Buyer no longer wanted to car so seller sued for damages for loss of sale. Since the supply was greater than demand, he was granted loss profits
• What is the Loss of Amenity?

  A form of compensation which reflects how injuries/ quality of life had been affected
• What are nominal damages?

  A trivial sum of money awarded because their legal rights have been violate but unable to recover compensatory damages
• What is the principle established in Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth

  Ruxley agreed to make a pool at 7x6 but was 6x9 at the end. Forsyth wanted to rebuild the pool and claimed damages which amounted to over 20k. However, the pool was worth something so Nominal damages was given
• What is restitutionary damages? 


  When the profits or gains from a wrongdoer is stripped away.
• What was the principle in Attorney General v Blake (Jonathan Cape Ltd Third Party) ? 


  Blake was a former spy who wrote a bibliography disclosing secrets. AG sued for disclosing secrets and was given restitutionary damages and the profits given to the government.

  Restitutionary damages may be awarded when ordinary damages are inadequate.
• What was the principle established in Transfield Shipping Inc of Panama v Mercator Shipping Inc of Monrovia (The Achilleas) ?

  Mercator was suppose to deliver a ship to Transfield but was delivered late. The 3rd party transfield contracted with negotiated a lower price because of the delay. So transfield sues the difference for 8k daily. Mercator argues they are only liable for overrun and was successful because it was unreasonably foreseeable.

  Established a new test of assumption of resonsibility.

  responsibility for loss is assumed depends on if loss is signifcant of the risks undertaken
• What is the Quantum meruit basis ?

  A claim for a reasonable sum in respect of services supplied to defendant.
• Planche v Colburn

  Agreed to write a book on costume and armour. Price was £100 upon completition and finished most of it but Colburn cancelled lost minute and refused to pay. He was awarded £50 because of the performance.

  
  

  Legal principle: used quantum meruit basis (the amount one deserves/ as much as one has earned) 
• Wortham Park Estate Co Ltd v Parkside Homes Ltd


  Built homes on land they werent suppose to under the land charges act. Worthan had the right to determine any changes. However, Urban district council sold the land to Parkside with approval. Worthan seeked an injunction to demolish the house.

  It was unreasonable to demolish houses buily. Sum of money reasonably demanded by wortham was given.

  LP: Negotiatied damages can be granted in situations where it is more appropriate
• Morris Garner v One Step (Support) Ltd 


  Garner was a former shareholder of one step and entered a covenant to not compete with the company. Garner started a similar company which led to loss of profit from one step who sued for damages. They were given nominal damages because financial loss was difficult to quantify. In this case Negotiating damages was unavailable because it is based upon finanical loss.

  LP: Negotiating damages are not discretionary. It cannot be given because claimant has difficulty proving damages.