what are the kinds of remedies
- legal remedies
- equitable remedies
- remedies under specific performance
Legal remedies
Damages for rights with respect to goods
- right to rejection
- right to repudiate (treat the contract as if it ends)
- discharge of contract when
- breach of a condition or innominate term
- one party refuses to do his obligations or the substantial part of obligations including anticipatory breach
- one party makes it impossible to perform contract
The sale of goods act 1979 remedies
- a lien = possession over goods until they receive payment
- rights to stopping the goods in transit and regaining possession of the goods from carrier (insolvency)
- right to resale as limited by the act
CRA 2015 remedies
- S20 = short term rights to reject
- S23 = right to repair or replacement
- S24 = right to price reduction
Nominal damages
Where no actual loss is present but there is a breach courts may award damages as seen in Staniforth V Lyall
Wrotherm park damages = where equitable remedy was refused and no monetary loss was provable, try to reasonable negotiate between the parties for giving permission to the wrongdoer to act as they did, difficult to impose as lack of outlining as to when to use (Morris v one step = when C has a very real problem in establishing financial loss)
Speculative damages
- should be careful when awarding damages on a speculative nature
- law has broaden with regards to mental distress (Jarvis v Swan)
- Damages for loss of amenity when the contract was for the provision of a pleasurable amenity
Amenity pleasure damages
Ruxley v Forsyth = court award 2500 for loss of amenity
Remoteness of damage
Tests for when damages CAN be rewarded
test est. by Hadley v Bexendale
- objective test according to what loss is a natural consequence of the breach
- subjective test,, based on specific knowledge of potential losses in the minds of both parties when forming contract
Victoria laundry v newman
est developed test for remoteness
- revpberable loss should be measured against a test of reasonable foreseeability
- foreseeability of loss is itself dependant on knowledge at the time the contracts were made
- knowledge is of two types common knowledge and actual knowledge
Czarnikow v Koufos
Knowledge can be implied on the basis of what a reasonable man may have contemplated in the circumstances
Loss of bargain
- the difference in value between the goods or services required ub the contract and those actually provided
- where there is a market, damages will be the difference between the contract price and the price in the market
- loss of profit
- loss of chance - speculative
difference between the values between the goods and services and those actually provided
Benice v Fasson
damages between given for the contract price and the market price
Charter v Sullivan = market would have allowed the seller to easily sell car to make profit and therefore nominal damages were awarded
Thompson v Robinson = no available market claim for full loss
loss of profit
Victoria v newman - where claimant recovered the profit that he would have made if the breach didn’t happen
Loss of chance
Chaplin v Hicks
Reliance loss
expense incurred by C who relied on the contract being performed. C may also recover for expenses they had made before the contract was made
Anglia v Reed = Reed was an actor and centre of the film with no understudy, breach of contract lead to the award of reliance loss damages
Restitution
Repayment o any money or other benefits passed to the defendant in advance of the contract that is breached
The duty to mitigate loss
C must do all reasonable acts to minimise the effect of the loss they have suffered, Westinghouse elec v Underground elec
HOWEVER NOT required to take unnecessary lengths - White and Carter v McGregor
Liquidated damages
where the amount of damages is fixed by a term of the contract only accepted when the contract identifies the proper and accurate assessment of loss.
Dunlop v new garage test:
- an extravagant sum will always be a penalty
- payment of a large sum for failure to settle will not be allowed
- wording used in the contract is not conclusive
-
New test for liquidated damages
Est. by parking eye v Beavis and Cavendish v talal
the party seeking to rely on penalty must show the clause is to protect against legitimimat interest and that the penalty is not exorbitant or unconscionable.
- the penalty no longer has to be genuine pre-estimate of loss
- applies to Commercial and consumer
- the party seeking to allow the penalty does not have to have suffered loss
Quantum meruit
- in contract missing parts = Upton council v Powell
- where extra requirement is present for a party = Steven v bromley
- where a party had already done work they can claim for this work (Barnady v Harding)
Injunction (equitable remedy)
prohibitory injection = stopping another acts
interim injunction = temporary injunction
mandatory injunction = person ordered to do something
HOWEVER
court cannot award an injunction making someone complete a personal service as the court is unable to supervise such as order (Page one v Britton)
Specific performance
court compelling another to act
