Chapt 7 Contract Cases - Damages

Question 1

Robinson v harman 1848

Answer 1

Courts general approach to damages in contract

Robinson v Harman. the rule of the common law is, that where a party sustains loss by reason of a breach of contract, he is, so far as money can do it to be placed in the same situation, with respect to damages, as if the contract had been performed.

Question 2

Hadley v Baxendale 1854

Answer 2

Remoteness. The term remoteness refers to the legal test of causation which is used when determining the types of loss caused by a breach of contract or duty which may be compensated by a damages award. … Contract: In contract, the traditional test of remoteness is set out in Hadley v Baxendale ([1854)

2 limbs to test

1. losses such as may fairly and reasonably be considered as arising naturally (that is, according to the usual course of things) from the breach; and
2. losses such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of the parties at the time when they made the contract as the probable result of the breach of it.

Question 3

Jarvis v swan tours 1973

Answer 3

Exception to rule about non percunary losses

Where a contract is entered for the specific purpose of the provision of enjoyment or entertainment, damages may be awarded for the disappointment, distress, upset and frustration caused by a breach of contract in failing to provide the enjoyment or entertainment.

Question 4

Anglia tv v Reed 1972

Answer 4

Pecuniary damages/ reliance loss

The claimant, Anglia Television, engaged Oliver Reed to play the leading role in a television play. Subsequently Reed pulled out and Anglia was unable to find a replacement. They abandoned the play but had incurred expenses amounting to £2,750.

Held:

Whilst damages generally seek to put the parties in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed, the parties may elect to claim reliance loss and recover expenses incurred in an abortive transaction. Thus Anglia was able to recover their expenses from the defendant.

Question 5

Smith Hogg and Co v Black Sea

Answer 5

Factual causation

But for

First part of causation