Synopsis of Submissions of the Respondent
May it Please Your Honour
1- The trial judge has not erred in applying the rule in Hadley v Baxendale, to the damages of $110,000 on the loss of the Moree Contract.
2- The Learned Trial judge should not have followed the reasoning in Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc [2009].
The Above Submissions are Supported as Follows
Submission One
1.1 – Firstly, remoteness is used to identify the limits beyond which a defendant cannot be held liable for loss caused by their actions and breach of contract. In this case how far should the liability of Golden Sheaf go, should they be held liable for the losses that Goondiwindi Contractors suffered in relation to their future contract in Moree. The …show more content…
The actions of Golden Sheaf Harvesters Ltd in sending the wrong parts to fix the harvesters for Goondiwindi Contractors Pty Ltd, can be considered as a breach of contract as they would have realised that the delay in having the correct computers for the harvester would cost Goondiwindi Contractors money and future contracts
Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 156 ER 145, Alderman B Paragraph 151
1.3 – Thirdly, supported by the case of C Czarinkow Ltd v Koufos [1969] as the appellant should have realised having the information from Goondiwindi Contractors stating the urgency of having the new parts for the harvesters for both the current contract at Croppa Creek and the next contract at Moree, that their actions in sending the wrong parts would cause delays for Goondiwindi Contractors and would affect their future contracts.
C Czarinkow Ltd V Koufos [1969] Lord Reid, paragraph …show more content…
Golden Sheaf Harvesters had knowledge that was put forth in an email sent by the manager of Goondiwindi Contractors to the Golden Sheaf factory relaying the urgency of the replacement parts for the harvesters both for their contract in Croppa Creek and their future contract in Moree. Therefore, having specific knowledge of the urgency of the new parts, and knowing as a reasonable person that the delay could cause a loss of business for Goondiwindi Contractors in the future, they can be held liable for the losses of $110,000 on the Moree contract.
Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd [1949] paragraph 543.
1.5 – Fifthly, if it please the court, Golden Sheaf Harvesters should be held liable for the damages of $110,000 on the loss of the Moree contract, as has been suggested previously that they had knowledge that a delay on their end would cause problems for the future contracts on Goondiwindi Contractors.
Submission
May it Please Your Honour
1- The trial judge has not erred in applying the rule in Hadley v Baxendale, to the damages of $110,000 on the loss of the Moree Contract.
2- The Learned Trial judge should not have followed the reasoning in Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc [2009].
The Above Submissions are Supported as Follows
Submission One
1.1 – Firstly, remoteness is used to identify the limits beyond which a defendant cannot be held liable for loss caused by their actions and breach of contract. In this case how far should the liability of Golden Sheaf go, should they be held liable for the losses that Goondiwindi Contractors suffered in relation to their future contract in Moree. The …show more content…
The actions of Golden Sheaf Harvesters Ltd in sending the wrong parts to fix the harvesters for Goondiwindi Contractors Pty Ltd, can be considered as a breach of contract as they would have realised that the delay in having the correct computers for the harvester would cost Goondiwindi Contractors money and future contracts
Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 156 ER 145, Alderman B Paragraph 151
1.3 – Thirdly, supported by the case of C Czarinkow Ltd v Koufos [1969] as the appellant should have realised having the information from Goondiwindi Contractors stating the urgency of having the new parts for the harvesters for both the current contract at Croppa Creek and the next contract at Moree, that their actions in sending the wrong parts would cause delays for Goondiwindi Contractors and would affect their future contracts.
C Czarinkow Ltd V Koufos [1969] Lord Reid, paragraph …show more content…
Golden Sheaf Harvesters had knowledge that was put forth in an email sent by the manager of Goondiwindi Contractors to the Golden Sheaf factory relaying the urgency of the replacement parts for the harvesters both for their contract in Croppa Creek and their future contract in Moree. Therefore, having specific knowledge of the urgency of the new parts, and knowing as a reasonable person that the delay could cause a loss of business for Goondiwindi Contractors in the future, they can be held liable for the losses of $110,000 on the Moree contract.
Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd [1949] paragraph 543.
1.5 – Fifthly, if it please the court, Golden Sheaf Harvesters should be held liable for the damages of $110,000 on the loss of the Moree contract, as has been suggested previously that they had knowledge that a delay on their end would cause problems for the future contracts on Goondiwindi Contractors.
Submission