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;
36 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
Galoo v bright |
The breach must be an "effective" cause of loss, and the test is a common sense one |
|
CP hualage and middleton |
The loss comes from making the contract (which was a bad contract) and therefore not liable |
|
South australia asset mortgages corporation |
breaching liability is limited to direct consequences of breach, there is no liability for indirect consequences |
|
De La Bere |
the chain of causation is not broken if it is reasonably foreseeable event |
|
hadley v baxendale |
1. natural consequence of breach (Objective)
2. a loss which, if not natural consequence, the parties knew was possible when they contracted (subjectively) |
|
victoria laundry v newman industries |
- recoverable losses should be measured against foreseeability - foresight depends on knowledge of parties when contracting -knowledge can also be implied from what a reasonable man might have contemplated - implied knowledge should include what it is possible to have foreseen |
|
parson v utterly livestock |
remoteness is not deponent on contemplation of level of injury, but merely that was a serious possibility the consequences are foreseeable |
|
jackson v royal bank of scotland |
remoteness is determined at the time the contract was made, not time of breach |
|
chaplin v hicks |
expectation measure - loss of profit |
|
thompson v robinson chainsmoker
|
if claimant must pay more to get goods, or cannot get rid of goods since not available market = recovery possible |
|
ruxley electronics v forysteyth |
cost of cure available where the sole purpose of the contract was "the provision of pleasurable amenity" - difference in pool size meant could not drive in pool which was the purpose of the contract |
|
tito v wadell |
cost of cure must be reasonable for innocent party to insist on its cure - it was not reasonable to replant trees since no one lived there |
|
angila television v reed |
pre-contracutla expenditure = reliance loss reliance loss normally claimed when any loss of profit is too speculative |
|
McRae v commonwealth |
impossible to use expectation measure since impossible to assess the expected benefit from a non-existing tanker - reliance loss |
|
restitution loss |
1. breaching party was enriched 2. breaching party was enriched a C's expense 3. unjust and unfair for D to retain that benefit without compensating C |
|
AG v Blake |
restitution loss - it would be unfair to gain profits with the expense of government |
|
british westinghouse electronic |
a claimant has duty to take "all reasonable steps to mitigate the loss consequent of the breach" - claimant cannot claim damages which is caused by the failure to mitigate |
|
payzu v saunders |
- claimant not bound to take extraordinary steps to mitigate the loss - he was not entitled to damages since he had opportunity to purchase products when offered, but chose to ignore offer |
|
banco de portugual v waterlow |
- the claimant must not incur unreasonable expenses after breach of contract (increase the loss) - however expenses occurred during mitigation are reasonable (damages allowed) |
|
white and charter v McGregor |
- in an anticipatory breach, the claimant does not have to terminate at once to mitigate the loss. - he can wait till the actual breach |
|
addis v gramophone |
claim for injury and reputation, and consequent mental illness = no damages - exemplary damages |
|
malik v BCCI |
duty of trust and confidence = damages there must be actual evidence |
|
jaris v swan tours |
mental distress caused by total failure to match the description given = damages |
|
jackson v horizon holidays |
mental distress caused to claimants' family, where the provision of comfort, please and "peace of mind" was a central feature to contract |
|
london borough of waltham forest v omijula |
- no damages = he resigned in response to his employer's failure to pay him - no breach of duty of employee's trust and confidence |
|
dunchie v kingston |
lord steyn "one must focus solely on economic losses" -injured feelings difficult to quantify |
|
specific performance |
1. damages are an inadequate remedy 2. discretion of judges 3. not personal service contract |
|
sociétés des v the brox engineering |
there must be no substitute - sale of goods act, section 52(1) |
|
cohen v roche |
no specific performance since goods were non-specific goods |
|
beswick v beswick |
specific performance will be ordered if damages are nominal |
|
co-operative insurance society v grill stores |
specific performance not ordered if it requires constant supervision |
|
patel v ali |
claimant can resist specific performance if causes extreme hardship to him |
|
price v strange |
for specific performance, there must be mutuality of remedy - mutuality is tested at the time the court has to consider whether to grant specific performance |
|
page one records v birtton |
the injunction will not be granted if itself is futile or unreasonable - no injunction prevent band from employing anyone else as their manager. they could not function without a manager |
|
warner brothers v nelson |
- claimant must show contract contains a negative stipulation restrainting the other party from taking employment - actress contacted not to perform to third party, but did. specific performance not ordered since contract of personal service |
|
lumley v wagner |
claimant must show stipulation does not prevent employee from earning a living - injunction preventing her not to sing elsewhere |