Contract - Damages for Breach of Contract Flashcards
Specific Performance
Is an order requiring defendant to perform a contract
Actions for a Fixed Sum and Debt
The Plaintiff must ALREADY have performed the obligation to which the obligation relates.
Advantage for suing for fixed sum and debt?
Simply that judgment can be obtained on the minimum of fuss eg establishes that the amount was not paid.
One complication is that the plaintiff must have performed obligation to which the payment of the money relates.
Leading case in Action for Sum or Debt?
Young v Queensland Trustees
repudiates (vocabulary)
When one party to the contract demonstrates that it is unwilling or unable to fulfill its obligations under that contract. Courts view as serious matter and as such requires clear intention to no longer be bound by terms of contract.
No. 1 Principle of Damages for Breach
out of 8 principles
innocent party to breach which otherwise entitles part to terminate - is not OBLIGED to terminate the contract, can affirm, complete performance of obligations and recover as a debt the amounts due under contract. = where contract NOT terminated, ordinarily NO obligation to mitigate
No. 2 Principle of damages for breach - out of 8
If did terminate then subject to two qualifications set out in White there would be no obligation to mitigate.
No. 3 principles of damages for breach out of 8
First qualification known as cooperation qualification, namely innocent party cannot affirm contract and complete obligations in situations where completion of those requires cooperation of other party (ie contract of employment). So doesn’t include rental nor supply of goods.
No 4 principles of 8
second qualification, important = is where point comes t which be reasons of public policy it is wholly unreasonable to permit plaintiff to keep contract alive, in which case it remains open for plaintiff to sue for damages for breach of contract ie expectation damages for breach of lease, principles of mitigation apply.
No 5 principles of 8
During GFC often lessees abandoned premises. At commencement GFC, lessee was solvent, easy choice presented itself to lessor - simply sue periodically for rent as a fixed sum or debt once those sums were due. In accordance with general principle, it was entirely open for lessor to have done so, rather than terminate lease, sue for expectation damages = discussed in Tall-Bennett and Co Pty ltd v Sadot Holdings Pty Ltd.
No 6 of 8
Potentially more complicated situation raises where say never tail end of GFC, at least fair expectation that property in question could be rented out for reasonable rent. Should lessor then terminate lease, or affirm and continue to sue for rent? Is the lessor obliged to terminate lease, given at this pint whilly unreasonable for lessor to do so, if did required to mitigate
No 7 of 8
Legitimate interest, confusion acknowledged, means ??
8 of 8
If one adopts test of whether plaintiff acted “wholly unreasonably” in holding defendant (in breach) to terms of contract by affirming, then authorities seem to suggest that indeed rather unusual for plaintiff to get to that stage where court will cease to allow the plaintiff to enforce the contract - that perhaps one could glean from discussion in Reichman (limited cases)
