Week 6 - cases

Hochester v de la tour

facts

• A traveler hires a helper for a European tour starting on June 1st

• On May 11th, the traveler cancels the contract

• The helper sues for damages on May 22nd, before the official start date of the contract has arrived

question

Can an innocent party sue for damages immediately after a contract is cancelled, or must they wait until the actual performance date passes?

decision

• Yes, they can sue immediately under the doctrine of Anticipatory Breach.

• The Rule = An express declaration that a party will not perform their future obligation is an immediate breach of an implied promise to keep the contract alive

• The Reason = The law does not force an innocent party to wait around passively until a deadline passes when it is already 100% clear the other side will breach. Doing so would unfairly prevent the victim from finding alternative arrangements to mitigate their losses.

Hong Kong shipping v Kawasaki

facts

• unseaworthy ship = old engine, constant maintenance is needed and undermanned

question

• fundamental non-performance?

• termination possible?

decision

• cannot go to termination because performance is still possible and it is not a fundamental non-performance

• therefore damages

Machine peeling artichokes

facts

• company ordered machine peeling artichokes, but due to railway was not delivered on time

• company had to hire manual labour and many artichokes still perished

question

can company claim damages from railways?

solution

• railways could not have foreseen that the package they were delivering would result in great costs on the company’s part when the contract was concluded

• not foreseeable

Bad tempered bear

facts

• visitor in zoo falls against barrier into bear cage

• bear bites visitor

question

can visitor sue zoo?

decision

• no because only possible in force majeure

• and victim contrbuted to he own injury due to her own fault (contributory negligence)

Houghton v Trafalgar insurnace

facts

• An insurance policy excludes coverage if a car carries a "load" exceeding what it was built for.

• The driver gets into an accident while carrying 6 people in a 5-seater car.

• The insurer refuses to pay, claiming the extra person was an excess "load."

question

How should a court interpret an ambiguous word ("load") in a business's exclusion clause when it harms a consumer?

decision

• Contra proferentem interpretation = any ambiguity in a standard-form contract clause must be resolved against the party who drafted it.

• The court interprets the word strictly against the insurance company

• "Load" was interpreted to mean baggage/cargo, not passengers. The exclusion failed, and the insurer had to pay