On the facts, Theresa is the the plaintiff and AirMalaysia is the defendant. It is question of whether Theresa can claim any remedy for the losses she suffered because of the breach of the contract by AirMalaysia. The first and vital issue to consider is to determine if there is a binding contract between Theresa and AirMalaysia. In order to constitute a contract, there must be offer, acceptance, consideration and intention to create legal relation. (Law Teacher, 2013) It is obvious that Theresa had booked and paid for the ticket far in advance and the flight was confirmed likewise, thus forming a legal binding contract. It is important to determine if there is contract between them as it affects directly to the results of the claim for losses.
…show more content…
It is obvious that Theresa can claim for Nominal Damages but since Theresa has suffered pecuniary loss, she would be advised to claim for pecuniary damages. Pecuniary damages are losses that can be qualified in monetary terms and they may consist of expectation losses and reliance losses. (Law Teacher, 2013) In order to recover damages, Theresa must show that her losses were caused by AirMalaysia’s breach. This is a question of causation and Theresa must prove that the loss was due to the act or default of AirMalaysia and there is no break in the chain of causation between AirMalaysia’s breach and the Plaintiff’s losses. On the facts, Theresa was forced to put up a night in Kuala Lumpur and Theresa was forced to take another flight to Melbourne. Besides that, because of being late to Melbourne, she realised that she lost a golden business oppurtunity which resulted in her losing a considerable sum of money. It is obvious that there is causation between the AirMalaysia’s breach of contract (Flight was cancelled on the day of flying- 1st December) and Theresa’ loss in that she was forced to put up a night in Kuala Lumpur and bought another ticket to Melbourne and indirectly lost a business …show more content…
In English law, the test of remoteness of damages was laid down in Hadley v Baxendale. In Hadley v Baxendale, a shaft in the plaintiff’s mill broke down and the plaintiffs hired the defendant to transport the shaft for repairs. The defendant delayed in the returning the shaft and the Defendant did not know that the plaintiffs did not have a spare shaft. The Plaintiffs sued for loss of profits as damages but the court held that the losses are too remote. (Law Teacher, 2013) There are two limbs in order to prove that the losses are not too remote. The frst limb is the ordinary losses which arise naturally in the usual course of things and/or the second limb is the extraordinary losses which arise within the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time they enetered into the contract. In Malaysia, the remoteness test is found in the case Toeh Kee Keong v Tambun Mining Co Ltd which the test is similar with Hadley v Baxendale. (Law Teacher,
It is obvious that Theresa can claim for Nominal Damages but since Theresa has suffered pecuniary loss, she would be advised to claim for pecuniary damages. Pecuniary damages are losses that can be qualified in monetary terms and they may consist of expectation losses and reliance losses. (Law Teacher, 2013) In order to recover damages, Theresa must show that her losses were caused by AirMalaysia’s breach. This is a question of causation and Theresa must prove that the loss was due to the act or default of AirMalaysia and there is no break in the chain of causation between AirMalaysia’s breach and the Plaintiff’s losses. On the facts, Theresa was forced to put up a night in Kuala Lumpur and Theresa was forced to take another flight to Melbourne. Besides that, because of being late to Melbourne, she realised that she lost a golden business oppurtunity which resulted in her losing a considerable sum of money. It is obvious that there is causation between the AirMalaysia’s breach of contract (Flight was cancelled on the day of flying- 1st December) and Theresa’ loss in that she was forced to put up a night in Kuala Lumpur and bought another ticket to Melbourne and indirectly lost a business …show more content…
In English law, the test of remoteness of damages was laid down in Hadley v Baxendale. In Hadley v Baxendale, a shaft in the plaintiff’s mill broke down and the plaintiffs hired the defendant to transport the shaft for repairs. The defendant delayed in the returning the shaft and the Defendant did not know that the plaintiffs did not have a spare shaft. The Plaintiffs sued for loss of profits as damages but the court held that the losses are too remote. (Law Teacher, 2013) There are two limbs in order to prove that the losses are not too remote. The frst limb is the ordinary losses which arise naturally in the usual course of things and/or the second limb is the extraordinary losses which arise within the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time they enetered into the contract. In Malaysia, the remoteness test is found in the case Toeh Kee Keong v Tambun Mining Co Ltd which the test is similar with Hadley v Baxendale. (Law Teacher,