RECAP- REMEDIES

Flame as v glory wealth shipping - but for test

STANIFORTH V LYALL- nominal damages, suffered no loss

WROTHAM V PARKSIDE HOMES- 2.5k damages, 5% profit d expected to make from breach- but no loss, negotiating damages

no damages = loss of reputation ADDIS V GAMOPHONE unless from physical inconvenience WATTS V MORROW

loss of amenity even tho no loss can be compensated RUXLEY

MORIS GARDENER- negotiating damages

REMOTNESS OF DAMAGE:

HADLEY V BAXENDALE- loss of profits. test- d liable for losses occur naturally (objective), also if supposed to have been in reasonable contemplation of parties in time of contract (SUBJECTIVE)

VICTORIA LAUNDRY V NEWMAN: D’s liable for loss of profits.

HERON II- if reasonable man would ave thought about it, must be a serious possibility

WELLESLEY PARTNERS

ROBINSON V HARMAN ‘loss of bargain, c being in position they would’ve been in before

LOSS OF BARGAIN

  • difference in value - RUXLEY

  • difference between contract and market prices - W L THOMPSON V ROBINSON GUNMAKERS

  • loss of profit- VICTORIA LAUNDRY

  • speculative losses- MCCRAE V COMMONWEALTH

RELIANCE LOSS

liquidated can turn with with exclusion clause

pre- agreed sum that a party must pay if a specific breach occurs -

delays

late delivery

party does not have to prove exact los

  • represent a genuine estimate at the date of the contract of the loss likely to be suffered by the innocent party

  • genuine pre-estimate of the loss- valid clause- liquidated damages

  • penalty because the amount is too large then it is invalid- void DUNLOP

PARKEYE V BEAVIS

man over stays car parking , for being ten mins late, gets a fine. takes to court , HC ,COA,UKSC. man loses . principle / precedent - parkingeye have numerous notices throughout car park about warning for over 2 hour stay = 85 pound fee . penalty = unenforceable .

parkeye and landowners had a ‘LEGITIMATE INTEREST’. and £85 wasn’t “EXTRAVAGANT NOT UNCONSCIONABLE”

CAVENDIS CASE