+
Related Flashcards
Related Topics
Cards In This Set
| Front | Back |
|
ANGLIA TV LTD v REED The Interests Protected Actor has to pay studio’s losses resulting from abandoned production |
P spent $ before contracted D to play lead. D repudiated K days before filming. P tried to find replacement. Could not. Film Abandoned. Suing D for damages.
RULE: Pre-K Expenditure can be included if reasonably contemplated by parties as likely to be wasted if K broken |
|
BOLLENBOCKBACK v CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY The Interests Protected Health insurance premiums returned to P when claim denied |
P policy holder with D. Made application. Told policy lapsed. Awarded premiums paid after date D acted as if no K.
RULE: Where breach is fundamental = acting as if no K. Must discurge all benefit from K by claim in restitution or expectation. Purpose of recission put parties in position prior to K formation. |
|
PITCHER v SHOEBOTTOM The Interests Protected Seller in breach must pay market value for land at closing date |
P contracted with D to buy land, made payments. D breached K sold to third party. Value of land increased since K to time of trial.
RULE: Purpose of damages is to put P in position at time K breached. Damages awarded = Difference in value at time of K closing (or reasonable time implied) and contract price + $ paid - expenditure necessary to close deal. |
|
HAWKINS v McGEE The Interests Protected Doctor must compensate patient for value of "good hand" |
D found to have given warranty of success to P "to make the hand 100%" in surgery. Failed. But for, P would not have surgery. Breach of K.
RULE: Damages = difference between value to P of a perfect hand and value of his hand in present condition + incidental consequences reasonably within contemplation of parties when they contracted **not pain/suffering from surgery |
|
WERTHEIM v CHICOUTIMI PULP CO The Interests Protected Non-breaching party to be placed in same position as if contract performed (in $) |
RULE: It is a ruling principle that in giving damages intention is to place P in same position as P would have been had the contract been performed by D.
|
|
HADLEY v BAXENDALE
Remoteness ("Foreseeability") Lost profits during delay in shipping broken mill shaft not recoverable |
P had broken shaft delivered by D to serve as model for replacement by manufacturer. D's unreasonable delays caused delay in receipt new shaft. Mill idle. Sues for loss of profits. RULE: Damages from broken contract must be: 1. Fairly and Reasonably considered to be naturally arising from usual breach of this K, or 2(a). Reasonably supposed to have been in contemplation of both parties at time of K, as probable result of breach. (b) Special circumstances that cannot be foreseen must be directly communicated to P, likely in terms of agreement for possible breach of contract. |
|
HORNE v MIDLAND RAILWAY CO Remoteness ("Foreseeability") Incidental losses due to delay in shoe delivery recovered, NOT lucrative contracts |
P shoe manufacturer K'ed to deliver to French army by date. P got goods to D train company on time and notified of K and need to be timely. D one day late. P lost contract. Sold shoes for less.
RULE: For notice of special circumstances to have effect K must arise from this knowledge that D agrees to bear exceptional loss (liability) |
|
HORNE v MIDLAND RAILWAY CO Remoteness ("Foreseeability") Incidental losses due to delay in shoe delivery recovered, NOT lucrative contracts |
P shoe manufacturer K'ed to deliver to French army by date. P got goods to D train company on time and notified of K and need to be timely. D one day late. P lost contract. Sold shoes for less.
RULE: For notice of special circumstances to have effect K must arise from this knowledge that D agrees to bear exceptional loss (liability) |
|
HORNE v MIDLAND RAILWAY CO Remoteness ("Foreseeability") Incidental losses due to delay in shoe delivery recovered, NOT lucrative contracts |
P shoe manufacturer K'ed to deliver to French army by date. P got goods to D train company on time and notified of K and need to be timely. D one day late. P lost contract. Sold shoes for less.
RULE: For notice of special circumstances to have effect K must arise from this knowledge that D agrees to bear exceptional loss (liability) |
|
HORNE v MIDLAND RAILWAY CO Remoteness ("Foreseeability") Incidental losses due to delay in shoe delivery recovered, NOT lucrative contracts |
P shoe manufacturer K'ed to deliver to French army by date. P got goods to D train company on time and notified of K and need to be timely. D one day late. P lost contract. Sold shoes for less.
RULE: For notice of special circumstances to have effect K must arise from this knowledge that D agrees to bear exceptional loss (liability) |
|
HORNE v MIDLAND RAILWAY CO Remoteness ("Foreseeability") Incidental losses due to delay in delivery recovered, NOT lucrative contracts |
P shoe company K'ed to deliver shoes to French army by date. Notified D train company of importance of delivering on time. D one day late. P lost contract. Sold shoes for less.
RULE: For notice of special circumstances to give effect, knowledge must give rise to K that D agrees to bear exceptional loss (liability). |
