(Windsors Ltd Newman Industries
Victoria Laundry v
Imputed reasonable pers-
knowledge which he actually
:
2nd of Halley &
Actual knowledge
:
satisfied 1st limb but not limb
Ltd :
know ordinary
T
the on taken to cont-
circumstances outside reasonably forseeable when
possess of special and what Baxendale what was
kind that
a [
things' ,
possess
-
ordinary course
of things of such course of
made depends on the knowledge then
would be
liable to result from ract was who later
breach in those special circumstances loss at all events by party Baxendale
:
as make additional that
ordinary =
ed by the parties or
possessed' Hadley v
purpose knowledge
to
liable to cause more loss so breach of remo-
a For this profits too
,
should breach loss of
recoverable not necessary that det subject-matter commits the
.
loss also
liable to result from course . Is the
imputed s actual knowledge
. te Alderson B : losess
himself what loss of 2 kinds : .
actually ask .
Hadley is of
recoverable for breach
in
based on state of his ofI st rule
to foresee
breach .
Is enough losses
such
to result t contract are
knowledge
likely
it was
ascertained be all and rea-
parties (objectively
may fairly
,
as
(based) upon intention of considered :
1) liability be
'Heron'll') : sonably
voluntarily undertaken
(The .
Czarnikow Ltd na-
enteringincontracten
KOUfos v c .
liability is arising
1st limb of Hadley. contractual 1) either
risk forwhichpeople
recover profits under to
could according
wrong toholdsomeonelabe
2) turally
↓ things
ought usual course of
contract breaker
& 10 Ltd :
(Livestock) Littley Ingham
Ltd v which breach of
H Parsons
of consequence is a kind' or ty Des for from such
under 1st limb Type decide whether loss
3) first
·
could recover
responsibility .
contractorres
been
consequence must have to have accepted may
necessarily specific taken be trea- as
not breach
. fairly to be kind which he can
or
possibilitydrising
from not the type
serious be
contemplated as a foreseeable losses reasonably be suppo-
↑
liable for
4) not
ted as having assumed responsibility. sed to have been in
of both
contemplation
they
at time
of in contract parties general principles
:
basis of law of remoteness damage Lord Hoffman as the
responsibility made contract
is ,
1) assumption of
foreseeable result of the 1) nominal damages
was reasonably
"
what the time contract probable
determined by more than at
breach
of it. if no actual loss
of for which the X
is whether the loss was a type loss , causal
not the test.
'Achilleas'
is 2) must be
2) fact that loss foreseeable
The to the
assumed responsibility
. Lord clearly related between breach
-
link
reasonably be assumed to have
party of relevant
can
cannot control - X
I knowledge and claimed
↓ThelossisNot
he loss
responsibility for something Hope alternative ap- to achieve contractual
used hy a
assume there is total failure
cannot be expected to 3) even if causal known as Parke B : where
3) party also Harman
as
:
of fue Robinson v
about it cannot avantify proaches
. is proper basis. innocent
must not be objective cost of cure
-
doesn't know anything link
of bargain by
,
loss
be he
,
loss where Darty sustains
s
Lord ↑
I too remote
Ifulling claima is question
of facts degree.
responsibility loss
.
me ↓ of a breach of contract, party's actual
have contemplated adopted Roger type of
loss has it's expectation reason
circumstances
1) neither party could loss relates to 4) Claimant between do depend on all
that
for difference far as money can
is reasonable will
interest he is so What
of breach the that may occur , by to mitigate
,
2) loss not ordinary consequence I duty value of what was same contract in question
an the including type of
-
in
traditional time coner
it to be placed of the case
at ↑
,
of extremely - remote if parties ·
loss what
expecteds respect to damages
occurred ,
situation
approach
x
be of unusual loss is too I position with been breached
.
wasmade
act , that has
came
to def did not
assume : compensation pecuniary (mo- was actually recei- per-
volatile market conditions I but Purpose contract had been
netary) losses ; as if
for that result of
responsibility claimant's losses
-
recoverable conclusions for red as a claimant
too remote to be same Remoteness based ordered to pay the achieve the
.
3) excessive loss ↑ loss sometimes pean- formed
. def
where party in breach had failed to
↓ arising out of breach the .
breach would cost to cure/ actual
foresee ability amount it likely that the
on
of contract not def's navy losses the
contractual objective , it was
Remoteness based * defective performance
on
be unfair to impose ↑
.
rationale : would X
↑ I remedy def's
necessary cost of attaining that object
I
in certain
related to a purely from breach of libi- gains (except loss was the
E
Held : circumstances liability for all losses flowing assumption cost of putting claimant position
referred to claimant 1) Dimination
w/sens-
also
matter unforeseeable limited circumstances) put had tive (as in Radford v De Frobeville (
context. not concerned
how test
contract no lity' T been if def
- he would have
commercial as 'restitutionary of
in position as in
subject like national security & PPX damages' or 'an by parties
when contract was made
T and NOT punishment value fulfilled his obligations (ie had ↑
I
itive 2 tests conduct if contract had
def's
↑
those of contract
of fiduciary took place
in
account for profits innocent party may recover only not breached
the
Correct
position
,
been performed dimination of value
/ couldn't bring under
↑
not in
T
.
not too 'remote a cons
X
value of land , thus
deliberate breaches
occur
losses that are - I ↑ De Froberville
: did not affect situation as if
I
context. Radford same
commercial gain made 2) Cost of cure be placed in
v
reference to do it
more assessed by of def's breach of contract. assessed on >
- >
-
entitled so far as money could ,
which
commercial world so
loss suffered
carence
Damages Expectation cost of care Plaintiff out that
frequently in to actual measure was for cost of carrying
.
MacM-
by compensating him
def <
exceptional by not Joint Stock Bank v
of Losses > >
3 possible
-
(London Remoteness Could be done
circumstances (English Law Losses had been performed using
a
↑ contract not merely
.
loss and
needed to make by claimant. illan
bases -
> Loss of compensation for a geniune
seeking
profits partic
was
def fail to do provided that he
account of
,
the exceptional
ina
,
awarded to claimant based on
enough to justify awarded at discretion of damages Amenities
technical branch to secure a profit.
-
of h i s 5 ~
avaliable
. result damages
made by def
↓
as a
another remedy court. no automatic rightI gain/profits Reliance Loss
culary when
breach (2) suffered by claimant is not monetary
"
↓ neither (1) nor
tO GBD
back
Non-pecuniary awarded when real or actual loss
put claimant would have been
recover GBD
suffered by of enjoying the position he
actual loss
:
to Losses >
-
but the loss
PPX Enterprises Inc
:
Requirements L av Reed : < he was
reflect the
Experience Hendrix LLC v
breach of < Anglia Television into position approach has
had the contract been performed
reasonable sumba enriched by his had
L
the claimant. This
liable full amount but 1) def
Lord Denning : Plaintiff McRaev Comm before breach
recently recognised
not .
would been
not sufficient exceptional circumstances contract
of an election
: can either claim ission Disposal ↓
bre- expense
if could simply by
at the putting achievement of con-
2) enrichment or for Commission :
alternative to V
Forsyth : Court
High held damages on where there is substantial
be anomalous s
unjust E
for his loss of profit Electronics and construction Led -
royalties
or
diminition claimant in position Ruxley objective cost of cure not necessarily
avoid paying the claimant no tractual -
to But
aching agreement it did not reflect
point his wasted expenditure .
(no decrease in if contract had
been
would in unreasonable in the circumstances as
objective sub-
but case not exceptional to the
allow def to retain He
as cost of cure
actual loss Suitable basis Where contractual
3) unjust to los of amenities represented
.
sum .
between them which
(expectation
any
account of all profits must elect value of
ship-performed suffered. awarded loss be very dit-
which court should
order full
benefit who compensating
claimant. has
the actual loss
for established loss >
-
stantially achieved Situation might
both If he cost to compensate an .
held damages designed
cannot claim wreck no
could be factor
.
HOL
preference [of F]
suffered by F
↓ seeks to put the claimant such a pur-
!
achieve Personal
.
loss of pro- no loss (and to ferent.
benefit to the aggrieved party
of cure
Niad Ltd : had not suffered any
,
Co Ltd Parkside Homes if he had provide a
sufferred but
party did
v Estate in position as and not to
been
or
Petroleum Wrothnam Park what of amenities sustained innocent had
Esso by loss
-
cannot prove reasonable. true loss in determining what
of cure , no fits it the contract. If
interest X cost or entered pose damages should be
(
no
diminuition personal prefe-never rein
legitimate of what
,
Led no of .
, ,
:
have been cost
be no was
profits would ↓ would be unreasonable to award
not in itself be determinative
reliance his
rence) allowed to the need to reinstate it could
prevent- preference no
not
,
extend
reinstatement [cure) and
interest in personal ,
measure of dam
.
what the altern- akin to tortious
had legitimate base don claim in of
to recover
↓
he can was .
was cost
expenditure . damages in position the loss
Held drown though ted
ages (putting claimant
General guide
: ,
PHh which statement.
demanded the expenditure ted expenditure
profit making
ative available
ing B's
claimant had
a WPE could reasonably
have
that
he was before commission of forts
diminution in value were not the only
he incurred as
whether covenant maving regard been thrown away ↓ loss of
personal preference contract for de-
was restrictive has -
not exhaustive ,
def's profit from the result of relying usually recovery of wasted
satisfaction of a of recovery for breach
of
interest in preventing profits from the sale
reason of the involve
where breaah causes only loss of measure
legitimate of profit. to PHL's anticipated is wasted by on def implied
out of pocket expenses breach of performance resulting . Court was not confined to
had building works
and depriving him expenditure s Where there been a
fective
basis
making activity amenities is proper
I .
breach but unfulfill
.
of houses .
incurred in relying on def's promise preference
closs of1 satisfaction of personal for one or the other
.
promise expectation of performance opting
why ↓ ed to perform in loss of a ,
.
: no reason .
value ,
Attorney General v Blake in
an equitable diminution
Held : GBD are
out amenity but there had been no
court should always ruse
Impact or a closs of a) pleasurable
Claim
principle CCC Films (London) Ltd v
Bliss South East That than cost of cure).
-
<discretionary) in
Hayes James & Charles Dodd : v
plaintiff (rather
remedy party in
v
to compensate
performance of profits (made by Quadrant Films Ltd : wasted do not fall mes RHA : contract of Court could award modest damages award damages on loss
interest in an account commercial contracts in
ant's
doesn't fall reconstruct pool and
recover for physical
render it breach of contract.
recoverable if it employment had been Greasonable to entitled to
of contract might to breach) as remedy for expenditure not
Within exception Damages for an Trial judge .
and South Western Railway
:
was too remote .
loss
.
:
for Court
London
cavitable just response
to a breach not recover within exception-damage amenities. Hobbs and Wife v
awarded for illness ,
as
S
exceptionally a is shown by party in
guish and vexation of
damages
-
o discomfort No
jus when and
,
,
convenience
*
breach of contract
.
order for specific so required court should
that victim would not have reco-
as arose out of purely for ,
(i) make breach of contract ,
able they award losses were
of if not permissible to
Damages for non-pecuniary
OR
discretionary remedy vered the expenditure even
contract (ie not for
V
for physical discomfort not cost of cure
performance dimination
losses for breach
.
be able to grant commercial
for trus- Non-pecuniary was
physical consequences
morrow :
injunction benefits received .
performed or free general damages Watts v
inconvenience caused by
(ii) grant reariving def account for contract had been of peace of mind for distress and
cases make
to
provision annoyance occa- discomfort recoverable only
exceptional contract. contract tration or inconveniences distress.
if physical
,
breach of
If def Staughton M ental
:
(iii) in from his can prove .
distress Per contract Damages for
breach of contract and NOT for
should re- edom from of of
by breach recoverable .
.
that det be
sioned of contract
↑
↓
would not
an order breach performed wasted distress in
Co- consequent upon breach
Y
from his amages for mental injured
,
&) for
no
benefit Commonwealth of Australia v Amann Co Ltd cannot include compensation
:
tain not :
damages
able to be recovered ,
then
matter of policy contracts that Addis v Gramophone
proper expected ntract as
injured feelings/mental
↑
where are
in
Aviation Pty Ltd
:
dismissed of itself
awarded only fall wit losses having been
-
GBD don't Non-pecuniary sustain from fact that his
Held :
assessed reliance dam
. recoverable
limited to certain classes of cused S eelings or loss he may
cannot be decided
-
exceptional cases,thatna ↓
,
benefit Per Lord Atkinson
experi
him
: no
damages distress. difficult to obtain fresh employment.
Cie for peace of mind/freedom
awarded. reliance of makes it more
will be in
ages tation dismissal
damages for illegal
.
equivalent fall within those classes breach of co-
dismissed employee can recover exemplary
damages case not out of
.
arise and no
can be described as
distress) and this such damages arising case that
breach of contract
profits
would
which has been for it amounts that damages for
would be
prescri wasted expenditure respect of disappointment at recoverable only in exceptional cases .
effect damages for defamation -
rules
to
the could be awarded in his ntract are
fixed reliance upon not punishment.
regard to
reasonably incurred in
of economic ↓ were in nature of compensation
Court will promises David & Shape : loss of pleasurable amenity that was no
.
bed contractual Hamilton-Jones v
Farley Skinner /contract for pen- of contract,
including
:
assumption that the
importance to him in ensuring his plea-
v
exception :
Often been said that on breach
circumstances .
honoured for 'peace of mind' Mental value but was of
Ltd Per Lord Denning
:
all would be contract
enjoyment) damages for men-
contract be recovered
:
of def confined to ceful : for Jarvis Swan Tours can
of contract sure relaxation or peace of . Principle
mind not v
distress . But in proper case damages
matter allowed Loss of custody of ,
all be given
for mental
damages cannot
E
1) subject distress sufficient if prov-tas and disappointment enjoyment's
discomfort Was distress other con-
.
5
Physical inconvenience or .
=
contract holiday or any
contractual pro- for breach if case is for a
2) purpose of child were recoverable
had been major or important part
a
of
owed Generally could not in principle peace of in damages just as shock in fort. .
One
of amenity
.
,
ision
objects of the contract not to claimant.
vision breached one of the
object. Immaterial that def
plaintiff's mind' trust to provide entertainment & enjoyment
had occurred contract rather than its sole be awarded in respect of
which breach was to provide peace of .
mind undertaken
3) circumstances achievement of a result but merely caused by mere fact ↓
guaranteed state of mind
being sought
-
relief was Ltd
achieving it Holidays
.
which the See Jackson v Horizon
broken
4) circumstance being . :
care in contract
.
to exercise reasonable
, rules
general
:
British Westing House Electric Co Ltd v under-
1) claimant expected
ground Electric Railway Co : basis for compensa -
to take all reasonable
for pecuniary loss
tion is to provide compensation steps to mitigate
.
breach But this 1st
which naturally flows from
2) expenses
incurred in
Invalidity of penalty
second which imposes on a
not bar C's
principle is qualified by mitigating also recover clause does
all reasonable steps rable damages .
claim for
his
plaintiff the duty of taking right to
and have to
consequent the breach 3) however must not un loss. Will
mitigate on ,
to loss = actual
reasonably incur expense , as to
in respect of any part lead evidence
debars him from claiming will NOT be recoverable loss.
to take his actual
of the loss which is due to his neglect result of
4) if as a
to mitigate however , doesn't claimant ↑
steps. Duty , mitigation ,
such
money
to take any step gain economic advan- will be
offset Payment of
impose plaintiff an obligation
would not ordinarily tage will taken
into -
againstIs stipulated as in
prudent
,
man
which reasonable s determining terrorem (to put
claim
account in .
course of his business. of the
take in the
claimant's damages into def
.
fear
↓ D would su-
↑ liability
Ltd :
person case of breach
.
Banco de Portugal · Waterlow & Sons under duty to mitiga- fer in
damages if by doing to his loss I will not
not obliged to minimise
to that
commercial reputation be entitled X
so would have injured his
of his loss
unenforceable.
portion Penalty clause is
bad name in the trade .
by getting
a to his
attributable
↓ failure to Mitigate ↑
from det have to
Pilkington Wood : could recover
↑ term in does not
Liquidated damages clause
v : I
geniune agreed > evidence
,
involve
,
that would of money lead any
contract specifying amount
of seller as
instead Innocent Party's -
pre-estimate
of -
in breach of as to his actual
complicated litigation
.
Duty to mitigate which payable by party loss what is
& is enforc loss ; recovers
his Loss
contract to innocent party Clause .
in LAD
cable in law stated
↑
.
↑
Damages Distinction between
&
liquidated damages
English Law
s 'penalty'
clause
.
case
↓
clause .
Ltdr Bearis-recent
Parking eye
Ford Motor Co (England) Ltd v
Agreed or Liaridated
Armstrong : did not fall within
Damages clauses ↑
Dunlop ↓ ↓ Talal El Makdessi :
fair pre-estimate in
Holding
BV v
old Test New Test- > Cavendish Square
↑ ↓
not
question is whether clause is penal ,
Ltd : real
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre 1) The
Co
of loss.
for is extravagant whether it is a pre-estimate
1) If sum stipulated (x)
amount in comparison whether any land it so what legitimate
and unconscionable in
2) firstly ,
If
could conceivably by the clause
.
With the greatest loss which
interest is served and protected
breach :
PENALTY
to have followed from PENALTY
be proved not it is a
sum of money
, assuming such interest new test
is
to
pay a
consider whether
only failing 3)
,
breach is Second just
2) If same
,
is never >
to have interest
ought
-
which for the
provision made
than sum
and X Sum is
greater exists ,
the
exorbitant opposite
circumstances extravagent ,
been paid PENALTY theless in the
is a PENALTY
Presumption that
terms
3) Rebuttable or unconscionable.
of stipulated
lump sum
is made payable by way extravagant disproportion
between
when a single 4) An
all of of damages that could
of or more or
level
compensation ,
on the occurance one
sum and highest to a
would amount
occasion serious and from breach
some of which arise
several events , may possibly
trifling damages
.
others but PENALTY
served and
.
legitimate interest being
,
of
none of above , X is a
geniune pre-estimate 5) If there is
,
4) If
of the breach are
Sum is not extravagant , exorbitant
even if consequences if the stipulated
damages this is so
impossi- to damages that could
,
almost an
unconscionable or disproportinate
as to make precise pre-estimation
Such it is a
is a LAD clause .
4 says arise it
lif not caught by
1 , 2, 3 then
possibly ,
bility
.
geniune pre-estimate
Victoria Laundry v
Imputed reasonable pers-
knowledge which he actually
:
2nd of Halley &
Actual knowledge
:
satisfied 1st limb but not limb
Ltd :
know ordinary
T
the on taken to cont-
circumstances outside reasonably forseeable when
possess of special and what Baxendale what was
kind that
a [
things' ,
possess
-
ordinary course
of things of such course of
made depends on the knowledge then
would be
liable to result from ract was who later
breach in those special circumstances loss at all events by party Baxendale
:
as make additional that
ordinary =
ed by the parties or
possessed' Hadley v
purpose knowledge
to
liable to cause more loss so breach of remo-
a For this profits too
,
should breach loss of
recoverable not necessary that det subject-matter commits the
.
loss also
liable to result from course . Is the
imputed s actual knowledge
. te Alderson B : losess
himself what loss of 2 kinds : .
actually ask .
Hadley is of
recoverable for breach
in
based on state of his ofI st rule
to foresee
breach .
Is enough losses
such
to result t contract are
knowledge
likely
it was
ascertained be all and rea-
parties (objectively
may fairly
,
as
(based) upon intention of considered :
1) liability be
'Heron'll') : sonably
voluntarily undertaken
(The .
Czarnikow Ltd na-
enteringincontracten
KOUfos v c .
liability is arising
1st limb of Hadley. contractual 1) either
risk forwhichpeople
recover profits under to
could according
wrong toholdsomeonelabe
2) turally
↓ things
ought usual course of
contract breaker
& 10 Ltd :
(Livestock) Littley Ingham
Ltd v which breach of
H Parsons
of consequence is a kind' or ty Des for from such
under 1st limb Type decide whether loss
3) first
·
could recover
responsibility .
contractorres
been
consequence must have to have accepted may
necessarily specific taken be trea- as
not breach
. fairly to be kind which he can
or
possibilitydrising
from not the type
serious be
contemplated as a foreseeable losses reasonably be suppo-
↑
liable for
4) not
ted as having assumed responsibility. sed to have been in
of both
contemplation
they
at time
of in contract parties general principles
:
basis of law of remoteness damage Lord Hoffman as the
responsibility made contract
is ,
1) assumption of
foreseeable result of the 1) nominal damages
was reasonably
"
what the time contract probable
determined by more than at
breach
of it. if no actual loss
of for which the X
is whether the loss was a type loss , causal
not the test.
'Achilleas'
is 2) must be
2) fact that loss foreseeable
The to the
assumed responsibility
. Lord clearly related between breach
-
link
reasonably be assumed to have
party of relevant
can
cannot control - X
I knowledge and claimed
↓ThelossisNot
he loss
responsibility for something Hope alternative ap- to achieve contractual
used hy a
assume there is total failure
cannot be expected to 3) even if causal known as Parke B : where
3) party also Harman
as
:
of fue Robinson v
about it cannot avantify proaches
. is proper basis. innocent
must not be objective cost of cure
-
doesn't know anything link
of bargain by
,
loss
be he
,
loss where Darty sustains
s
Lord ↑
I too remote
Ifulling claima is question
of facts degree.
responsibility loss
.
me ↓ of a breach of contract, party's actual
have contemplated adopted Roger type of
loss has it's expectation reason
circumstances
1) neither party could loss relates to 4) Claimant between do depend on all
that
for difference far as money can
is reasonable will
interest he is so What
of breach the that may occur , by to mitigate
,
2) loss not ordinary consequence I duty value of what was same contract in question
an the including type of
-
in
traditional time coner
it to be placed of the case
at ↑
,
of extremely - remote if parties ·
loss what
expecteds respect to damages
occurred ,
situation
approach
x
be of unusual loss is too I position with been breached
.
wasmade
act , that has
came
to def did not
assume : compensation pecuniary (mo- was actually recei- per-
volatile market conditions I but Purpose contract had been
netary) losses ; as if
for that result of
responsibility claimant's losses
-
recoverable conclusions for red as a claimant
too remote to be same Remoteness based ordered to pay the achieve the
.
3) excessive loss ↑ loss sometimes pean- formed
. def
where party in breach had failed to
↓ arising out of breach the .
breach would cost to cure/ actual
foresee ability amount it likely that the
on
of contract not def's navy losses the
contractual objective , it was
Remoteness based * defective performance
on
be unfair to impose ↑
.
rationale : would X
↑ I remedy def's
necessary cost of attaining that object
I
in certain
related to a purely from breach of libi- gains (except loss was the
E
Held : circumstances liability for all losses flowing assumption cost of putting claimant position
referred to claimant 1) Dimination
w/sens-
also
matter unforeseeable limited circumstances) put had tive (as in Radford v De Frobeville (
context. not concerned
how test
contract no lity' T been if def
- he would have
commercial as 'restitutionary of
in position as in
subject like national security & PPX damages' or 'an by parties
when contract was made
T and NOT punishment value fulfilled his obligations (ie had ↑
I
itive 2 tests conduct if contract had
def's
↑
those of contract
of fiduciary took place
in
account for profits innocent party may recover only not breached
the
Correct
position
,
been performed dimination of value
/ couldn't bring under
↑
not in
T
.
not too 'remote a cons
X
value of land , thus
deliberate breaches
occur
losses that are - I ↑ De Froberville
: did not affect situation as if
I
context. Radford same
commercial gain made 2) Cost of cure be placed in
v
reference to do it
more assessed by of def's breach of contract. assessed on >
- >
-
entitled so far as money could ,
which
commercial world so
loss suffered
carence
Damages Expectation cost of care Plaintiff out that
frequently in to actual measure was for cost of carrying
.
MacM-
by compensating him
def <
exceptional by not Joint Stock Bank v
of Losses > >
3 possible
-
(London Remoteness Could be done
circumstances (English Law Losses had been performed using
a
↑ contract not merely
.
loss and
needed to make by claimant. illan
bases -
> Loss of compensation for a geniune
seeking
profits partic
was
def fail to do provided that he
account of
,
the exceptional
ina
,
awarded to claimant based on
enough to justify awarded at discretion of damages Amenities
technical branch to secure a profit.
-
of h i s 5 ~
avaliable
. result damages
made by def
↓
as a
another remedy court. no automatic rightI gain/profits Reliance Loss
culary when
breach (2) suffered by claimant is not monetary
"
↓ neither (1) nor
tO GBD
back
Non-pecuniary awarded when real or actual loss
put claimant would have been
recover GBD
suffered by of enjoying the position he
actual loss
:
to Losses >
-
but the loss
PPX Enterprises Inc
:
Requirements L av Reed : < he was
reflect the
Experience Hendrix LLC v
breach of < Anglia Television into position approach has
had the contract been performed
reasonable sumba enriched by his had
L
the claimant. This
liable full amount but 1) def
Lord Denning : Plaintiff McRaev Comm before breach
recently recognised
not .
would been
not sufficient exceptional circumstances contract
of an election
: can either claim ission Disposal ↓
bre- expense
if could simply by
at the putting achievement of con-
2) enrichment or for Commission :
alternative to V
Forsyth : Court
High held damages on where there is substantial
be anomalous s
unjust E
for his loss of profit Electronics and construction Led -
royalties
or
diminition claimant in position Ruxley objective cost of cure not necessarily
avoid paying the claimant no tractual -
to But
aching agreement it did not reflect
point his wasted expenditure .
(no decrease in if contract had
been
would in unreasonable in the circumstances as
objective sub-
but case not exceptional to the
allow def to retain He
as cost of cure
actual loss Suitable basis Where contractual
3) unjust to los of amenities represented
.
sum .
between them which
(expectation
any
account of all profits must elect value of
ship-performed suffered. awarded loss be very dit-
which court should
order full
benefit who compensating
claimant. has
the actual loss
for established loss >
-
stantially achieved Situation might
both If he cost to compensate an .
held damages designed
cannot claim wreck no
could be factor
.
HOL
preference [of F]
suffered by F
↓ seeks to put the claimant such a pur-
!
achieve Personal
.
loss of pro- no loss (and to ferent.
benefit to the aggrieved party
of cure
Niad Ltd : had not suffered any
,
Co Ltd Parkside Homes if he had provide a
sufferred but
party did
v Estate in position as and not to
been
or
Petroleum Wrothnam Park what of amenities sustained innocent had
Esso by loss
-
cannot prove reasonable. true loss in determining what
of cure , no fits it the contract. If
interest X cost or entered pose damages should be
(
no
diminuition personal prefe-never rein
legitimate of what
,
Led no of .
, ,
:
have been cost
be no was
profits would ↓ would be unreasonable to award
not in itself be determinative
reliance his
rence) allowed to the need to reinstate it could
prevent- preference no
not
,
extend
reinstatement [cure) and
interest in personal ,
measure of dam
.
what the altern- akin to tortious
had legitimate base don claim in of
to recover
↓
he can was .
was cost
expenditure . damages in position the loss
Held drown though ted
ages (putting claimant
General guide
: ,
PHh which statement.
demanded the expenditure ted expenditure
profit making
ative available
ing B's
claimant had
a WPE could reasonably
have
that
he was before commission of forts
diminution in value were not the only
he incurred as
whether covenant maving regard been thrown away ↓ loss of
personal preference contract for de-
was restrictive has -
not exhaustive ,
def's profit from the result of relying usually recovery of wasted
satisfaction of a of recovery for breach
of
interest in preventing profits from the sale
reason of the involve
where breaah causes only loss of measure
legitimate of profit. to PHL's anticipated is wasted by on def implied
out of pocket expenses breach of performance resulting . Court was not confined to
had building works
and depriving him expenditure s Where there been a
fective
basis
making activity amenities is proper
I .
breach but unfulfill
.
of houses .
incurred in relying on def's promise preference
closs of1 satisfaction of personal for one or the other
.
promise expectation of performance opting
why ↓ ed to perform in loss of a ,
.
: no reason .
value ,
Attorney General v Blake in
an equitable diminution
Held : GBD are
out amenity but there had been no
court should always ruse
Impact or a closs of a) pleasurable
Claim
principle CCC Films (London) Ltd v
Bliss South East That than cost of cure).
-
<discretionary) in
Hayes James & Charles Dodd : v
plaintiff (rather
remedy party in
v
to compensate
performance of profits (made by Quadrant Films Ltd : wasted do not fall mes RHA : contract of Court could award modest damages award damages on loss
interest in an account commercial contracts in
ant's
doesn't fall reconstruct pool and
recover for physical
render it breach of contract.
recoverable if it employment had been Greasonable to entitled to
of contract might to breach) as remedy for expenditure not
Within exception Damages for an Trial judge .
and South Western Railway
:
was too remote .
loss
.
:
for Court
London
cavitable just response
to a breach not recover within exception-damage amenities. Hobbs and Wife v
awarded for illness ,
as
S
exceptionally a is shown by party in
guish and vexation of
damages
-
o discomfort No
jus when and
,
,
convenience
*
breach of contract
.
order for specific so required court should
that victim would not have reco-
as arose out of purely for ,
(i) make breach of contract ,
able they award losses were
of if not permissible to
Damages for non-pecuniary
OR
discretionary remedy vered the expenditure even
contract (ie not for
V
for physical discomfort not cost of cure
performance dimination
losses for breach
.
be able to grant commercial
for trus- Non-pecuniary was
physical consequences
morrow :
injunction benefits received .
performed or free general damages Watts v
inconvenience caused by
(ii) grant reariving def account for contract had been of peace of mind for distress and
cases make
to
provision annoyance occa- discomfort recoverable only
exceptional contract. contract tration or inconveniences distress.
if physical
,
breach of
If def Staughton M ental
:
(iii) in from his can prove .
distress Per contract Damages for
breach of contract and NOT for
should re- edom from of of
by breach recoverable .
.
that det be
sioned of contract
↑
↓
would not
an order breach performed wasted distress in
Co- consequent upon breach
Y
from his amages for mental injured
,
&) for
no
benefit Commonwealth of Australia v Amann Co Ltd cannot include compensation
:
tain not :
damages
able to be recovered ,
then
matter of policy contracts that Addis v Gramophone
proper expected ntract as
injured feelings/mental
↑
where are
in
Aviation Pty Ltd
:
dismissed of itself
awarded only fall wit losses having been
-
GBD don't Non-pecuniary sustain from fact that his
Held :
assessed reliance dam
. recoverable
limited to certain classes of cused S eelings or loss he may
cannot be decided
-
exceptional cases,thatna ↓
,
benefit Per Lord Atkinson
experi
him
: no
damages distress. difficult to obtain fresh employment.
Cie for peace of mind/freedom
awarded. reliance of makes it more
will be in
ages tation dismissal
damages for illegal
.
equivalent fall within those classes breach of co-
dismissed employee can recover exemplary
damages case not out of
.
arise and no
can be described as
distress) and this such damages arising case that
breach of contract
profits
would
which has been for it amounts that damages for
would be
prescri wasted expenditure respect of disappointment at recoverable only in exceptional cases .
effect damages for defamation -
rules
to
the could be awarded in his ntract are
fixed reliance upon not punishment.
regard to
reasonably incurred in
of economic ↓ were in nature of compensation
Court will promises David & Shape : loss of pleasurable amenity that was no
.
bed contractual Hamilton-Jones v
Farley Skinner /contract for pen- of contract,
including
:
assumption that the
importance to him in ensuring his plea-
v
exception :
Often been said that on breach
circumstances .
honoured for 'peace of mind' Mental value but was of
Ltd Per Lord Denning
:
all would be contract
enjoyment) damages for men-
contract be recovered
:
of def confined to ceful : for Jarvis Swan Tours can
of contract sure relaxation or peace of . Principle
mind not v
distress . But in proper case damages
matter allowed Loss of custody of ,
all be given
for mental
damages cannot
E
1) subject distress sufficient if prov-tas and disappointment enjoyment's
discomfort Was distress other con-
.
5
Physical inconvenience or .
=
contract holiday or any
contractual pro- for breach if case is for a
2) purpose of child were recoverable
had been major or important part
a
of
owed Generally could not in principle peace of in damages just as shock in fort. .
One
of amenity
.
,
ision
objects of the contract not to claimant.
vision breached one of the
object. Immaterial that def
plaintiff's mind' trust to provide entertainment & enjoyment
had occurred contract rather than its sole be awarded in respect of
which breach was to provide peace of .
mind undertaken
3) circumstances achievement of a result but merely caused by mere fact ↓
guaranteed state of mind
being sought
-
relief was Ltd
achieving it Holidays
.
which the See Jackson v Horizon
broken
4) circumstance being . :
care in contract
.
to exercise reasonable
, rules
general
:
British Westing House Electric Co Ltd v under-
1) claimant expected
ground Electric Railway Co : basis for compensa -
to take all reasonable
for pecuniary loss
tion is to provide compensation steps to mitigate
.
breach But this 1st
which naturally flows from
2) expenses
incurred in
Invalidity of penalty
second which imposes on a
not bar C's
principle is qualified by mitigating also recover clause does
all reasonable steps rable damages .
claim for
his
plaintiff the duty of taking right to
and have to
consequent the breach 3) however must not un loss. Will
mitigate on ,
to loss = actual
reasonably incur expense , as to
in respect of any part lead evidence
debars him from claiming will NOT be recoverable loss.
to take his actual
of the loss which is due to his neglect result of
4) if as a
to mitigate however , doesn't claimant ↑
steps. Duty , mitigation ,
such
money
to take any step gain economic advan- will be
offset Payment of
impose plaintiff an obligation
would not ordinarily tage will taken
into -
againstIs stipulated as in
prudent
,
man
which reasonable s determining terrorem (to put
claim
account in .
course of his business. of the
take in the
claimant's damages into def
.
fear
↓ D would su-
↑ liability
Ltd :
person case of breach
.
Banco de Portugal · Waterlow & Sons under duty to mitiga- fer in
damages if by doing to his loss I will not
not obliged to minimise
to that
commercial reputation be entitled X
so would have injured his
of his loss
unenforceable.
portion Penalty clause is
bad name in the trade .
by getting
a to his
attributable
↓ failure to Mitigate ↑
from det have to
Pilkington Wood : could recover
↑ term in does not
Liquidated damages clause
v : I
geniune agreed > evidence
,
involve
,
that would of money lead any
contract specifying amount
of seller as
instead Innocent Party's -
pre-estimate
of -
in breach of as to his actual
complicated litigation
.
Duty to mitigate which payable by party loss what is
& is enforc loss ; recovers
his Loss
contract to innocent party Clause .
in LAD
cable in law stated
↑
.
↑
Damages Distinction between
&
liquidated damages
English Law
s 'penalty'
clause
.
case
↓
clause .
Ltdr Bearis-recent
Parking eye
Ford Motor Co (England) Ltd v
Agreed or Liaridated
Armstrong : did not fall within
Damages clauses ↑
Dunlop ↓ ↓ Talal El Makdessi :
fair pre-estimate in
Holding
BV v
old Test New Test- > Cavendish Square
↑ ↓
not
question is whether clause is penal ,
Ltd : real
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre 1) The
Co
of loss.
for is extravagant whether it is a pre-estimate
1) If sum stipulated (x)
amount in comparison whether any land it so what legitimate
and unconscionable in
2) firstly ,
If
could conceivably by the clause
.
With the greatest loss which
interest is served and protected
breach :
PENALTY
to have followed from PENALTY
be proved not it is a
sum of money
, assuming such interest new test
is
to
pay a
consider whether
only failing 3)
,
breach is Second just
2) If same
,
is never >
to have interest
ought
-
which for the
provision made
than sum
and X Sum is
greater exists ,
the
exorbitant opposite
circumstances extravagent ,
been paid PENALTY theless in the
is a PENALTY
Presumption that
terms
3) Rebuttable or unconscionable.
of stipulated
lump sum
is made payable by way extravagant disproportion
between
when a single 4) An
all of of damages that could
of or more or
level
compensation ,
on the occurance one
sum and highest to a
would amount
occasion serious and from breach
some of which arise
several events , may possibly
trifling damages
.
others but PENALTY
served and
.
legitimate interest being
,
of
none of above , X is a
geniune pre-estimate 5) If there is
,
4) If
of the breach are
Sum is not extravagant , exorbitant
even if consequences if the stipulated
damages this is so
impossi- to damages that could
,
almost an
unconscionable or disproportinate
as to make precise pre-estimation
Such it is a
is a LAD clause .
4 says arise it
lif not caught by
1 , 2, 3 then
possibly ,
bility
.
geniune pre-estimate
