• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/6

Click to flip

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