Damages Flashcards
What are three types of damage interests?
1; Expectation measure of damages (loss of expectation of damages and expenses incurred)
2: Reliance measure of damages (good for a bad deal such as buying something for more than its value)
3: Restitution damages (when one party makes a gain at the others loss)
How to assess expectation measure of damages (Robinson v Harman - Facts)?
Harman agreed to grant lease on house for 110 pounds a year for 21 years.
Harman changed his mind and refused to complete lease.
House ended up being worth much more than 110 pounds a year.
Robinson sued for performance of contract.
How to assess expectation measure of damages (Robinson v Harman - Ratio)?
Where a party sustains loss by reason of a breach of contract, he is so far as money to do it, be placed in the same situation, with respect to damages, as if the contract had been performed.
Paula Lee Ltd v Robert Zehil - Facts
Contract between dress manufacturers and Zehil were distributors.
Contract broke down.
Defendants had agreed that they would buy no fewer than 16,000 garments each season.
Zehil tried to say they would buy 16,000 of the very cheapest garments.
Paula Lee Ltd v Robert Zehil - Ratio
It wouldn’t be realistic to base the damages on the cheapest garments each season.
They would also buy some more expensive ones (mixed prices).
Expectation damages based on buying mixed prices of garments.
What are the two main principles of damages?
1: Duty to mitigate.
2: Expectation damages only cover losses that are foreseeable.
South Australia Asset Management v York Montague - Facts
Valuer had valued property for lender, and lender lent money based on valuation.
Property overvalued and buyer defaulted on loans.
South Australia Asset Management v York Montague - Ratio
Damages should be limited to actual value of lenders loan, and the value of the loan had the valuation not been negligent.
Court would not award damages for non-foreseeable losses such as fall in value of house in market.
Ruxley v Forsyth - Facts
Built a swimming pool but swimming pool was not as deep as was specified.
Forsyth wanted cost of getting rid of swimming pool and making a new one.
Ruxley v Forsyth - Ratio
No, uneconomic to award entire amount for such a small defect.
Awarded an amount for loss of amenity - what you promised and what you got?
Cost of what you expected to get, NOT of curing the loss.
Tito v Waddell No 2 1977 - Facts
British Govt granted licence to mine phosphates.
Moved landowners of Ocean Island out, and required them to move.
Mined island and island came to end of useful life.
Descendants wanted to move back.
Terms of contract had specified that British govt and mining company had to replant all the trees.
Tito v Waddell No 2 1977 - Ratio
Court declined to do this, would be far too expensive to move you all back - no amenities and no trees.
Panatown Ltd v Alfred McAlpine Construction - Facts
Construction contract - allowed for third party to enforce rights against two parties actually in contract.
They could sue for expectation damages.
Aerospace Publishing v Thames Water Utilities Ltd - Facts
Publishing company - pipe burst and suffered losses.
Thames Water admitted liability.
Issue was that the Court had to deal with was how many damages ought to be awarded.
Argued, if flooding hadn’t happened, employees would have been engaged and would have made money.
Aerospace Publishing v Thames Water Utilities Ltd - Ratio
1: Claimant must show with evidence the extent to how they would have been diverted.
2: Must show how it caused significant disruption to the business.
If you can satisfy the above, you can make a claim.
