Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
6 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
(1) Cost of Cure |
= cost of restoring situation to what was promised =>> often described in cases as the cost of curing the breach of whatever is wrong |
|
(2) Loss of Value |
= difference in value of what was promised and what was supplied =>> in many situation it is possible to measure in both (1) and (2) - in which case the Court has to work out which was more appropriate |
|
(3) Loss of amenity |
= lose of use value =>> often a small but significant amount + most of the time is relevant where neither of the other two are suitable |
|
Warren and Mahoney v Dynes |
- FACTS: - W = Chch architect firm - D contracted with W and also engineers to design and build a house and pool - services provided were negligent resulting in the house being defective - clear breach - D claimed full reinstatement - cost to build house and pool somewhere else - inappropriate - LOV = difference between house as it was and house as it would've been had it been designed and built properly - W claimed it should be COC - cost to fix, but couldn't give the Court an amount - HELD: - full reinstatement - wrong, the cost of building the same house somewhere else is not reinstatement - The Court would normally go for cost of cure, but here this was not possible as didn't have the value - So Court gave LOV |
|
Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth |
- FACTS: - agreement to build swimming pool to max depth 7'7 to allow for diving in the pool - pool that was built was only 6 foot - clearly a breach - ISSUE: - what type of damages was appropriate? - HELD - there was no LOV as the depth didn't effect the value of the property - COC involved digging up pool and starting again over 20,000 pounds - It is the Courts job to decide what's reasonable - Court refused to award COC as would in effect overcompensate - if he received damages he would not rectify the pool, just take cash - AWARDED LOA - other two didn't make sense |
|
Marlborough DC v Altimarloch |
- P bought property with the intention of developing a vineyard - water rights were misrepresented to P - without these rights there could be no vineyard - clearly breach form misrepresentations - ISSUE: - type of damages appropriate? - LOV = difference between property with water rights and property without water rights $400,000 - COC = dam etc $1 million - HELD: 3 v 2 - COC awarded Tipping J - intention of buying the property was development of vineyard - couldn't do without water rights - only way to gain was build the dam - It was not reasonable in the circumstances to expect the P to relocate somewhere else where running a vineyard is feasible - another suitable property may not be available *** VERY DEPENDENT ON CIRCUMSTANCE |