• 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

1/36

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;

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