Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Damages, causation, remoteness - Coggle Diagram
Damages, causation, remoteness
Assessing
Default: expectation interest: Robinson v Harman- placing C in position they would be in ha the contract been properly performed
Cost of Cure: Birse Construction Ltd v Eastern Telegraph Co- cost of substitute or remedial works to put C in position as if contract performed (usual in defective works)
McGlinn v Waltham Contractors- C must act reasonable in relation to remedial works (unreasonable to demolish a property if purely for aesthetic purposes)
-
Loss of Amenity (not economic value, but value for C)
compensate difference in performance received vs performance promised (may be offered where expense of cost of cure is out of all proportion for benefit to be gained an there is no difference in face value)
Regus Ltd v Epcot Solutions- awarding loss of amenity is rare if not impossible for most commercial cases
Reliance Interest: compensate for expenses incurred preparing for or in part performance of contract, now rendered pointless by the breach (put C in position they would be in had they never contracted)
Awarded usually where expectation interest would be highly speculative so C has to be limited to this. Only applies for WASTED expenditure, if money can be used for a cure it will not be awarded
C & P Haulage v Middleton- cannot compensate reliance interest where it would be wasted expenditure whether or not breach had occurred. Was the expenditure unnecessary, did they make a bad bargain?
Anglia TV v Reed- only applies to losses incurred prior to breach, not a consequence of breach. Remedying defective performance is not reliance interest
Consumer Rights Act 2015
Goods are non-conforming
Short term right to reject(30 days)/right to repair or replacement(available unless impossible or disproportionate)
Right to price reduction/final right to reject (final right to reject has full refund within 60 days)
Not entitled to both. Only entitled to either where a) after one repair/replacement the goods are non-conforming b) replacement/repair is impossible or disproportionate, or trader is in breach of requirement to repair/replace within time period/without inconvenience
Digital Media
-
S42(9) any digital media which is non-conforming within 6 months of the contract is regarded as non-conforming
-
-
Causation
- Factual causation, common sense approach, the dominant cause
- Legal Causation can be established if there are no intervening acts which break the chain of causation
Lambert v Lewis- where intervening acts are viewed as not 'likely to happen' they likely will break the chain of causation
Monarch Steamship v Karlshamns Oljefabriker- where intervening acts are likely to happen they are more likely to not break the chain of causation
Type of Loss
Mental distress
Addis v Gramophone Co- generally no compensation for mental distress, anguish or annoyance
Farley v Skinner- exception where purpose of contract is pleasure, relaxation and pece of mine or where just a major element of the contract was for this purpose
-
Loss of Chance
Chaplin v Hicks- opportunity must have been 'real and substantial'. They can claim expectation loss if likely on the balance of probabilities. 50 percent or over
-
Remoteness
General: Hadley v Baxendale- 'first limb' damages must have been fairly and reasonably be considered to arise naturally (natural consequences/course of events) or 'second limb' reasonably may have been foreseen by D at time of contracting, taking into account any special circumstances
-
Mitigation (no obligation to mitigate but losses attributable to a failure to mitigate will not be recoverable)
British Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co v Underground Electric Rail Co- reasonable steps should be taken to mitigate loss if you want them to be recoverable
-
Payzu v Saunders- reasonable steps will sometimes mean accepting performance under a new contract, even if this means breaching the original contract
-
-