Regarding Contracts, damages and remedies - Key Cases

?
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd (1915)
The £5 needed to be paid was liquidated damages and was therefore enforceable.
1 of 18
Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi; ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis (2015)
The Supreme court held that since these clauses genuinely supported the primary obligations, they could be seen as liquidated damages and not penalties.
2 of 18
Pilkington v Wood (1953)
The claimant is only required to take reasonable steps to mitigate his incurred costs.
3 of 18
The Borag (1981)
Unreasonable costs cannot be claimed.
4 of 18
Hadley v Baxendale (1854)
Losses have to have been in the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time of contract and need to be seen as arising from the breach of contract.
5 of 18
Victoria Laundry Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd (1949)
The defendants could not be sued for what they were unaware of i.e. the claimant's government contract.
6 of 18
Heron II (1969)
The defendants should have known about the fluctuating sugar market and could have been expected to know about the implications of their lateness.
7 of 18
Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc (The Achilleas) (2008)
Loss was not assessed purely on what was foreseeable like in Hadley, but by what was foreseeable and reasonable. It was found that Transfield should pay the smaller damages, for although the larger was foreseeable, it was not reasonable.
8 of 18
Supershield Ltd v Siemens Building Technologies FE Ltd (2008)
Affirmed the rule in Transfield shipping.
9 of 18
Anglia v Reed
The costs were incurred after the contract was signed, but before performance started, but they were able to be claimed as reliance interest damages.
10 of 18
Payzu v Saunders
His duty to mitigate meant that he was not entitled to damages as it was not the other party's fault that he had to pay market price by refusing the discounted offer.
11 of 18
Ruxley Electronics v Forsythe
The price to reinstall the swimming pool, was not the measure used. This is because this would be unreasonable.
12 of 18
Jarvis v Swan Tours
Damages can be awarded for distress and disappointment.
13 of 18
Ryan v Mutual Tontine Westminster Chambers association (1893)
Specific performance was not practical because the courts couldn't be expected to monitor the enforcement.
14 of 18
Flight v Bolland (1828)
The specific performance needs to have been theoretically possible for the other party, had roles been reversed. Not possible here since the claimant was a minor.
15 of 18
Webster v Cecil (1861)
He who comes to equity must come with clean hands.
16 of 18
Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Company (1998)
A case in which the courts expressly rejected specific restitution. The companies didn't receive consideration from the other party, but the consideration still took place.
17 of 18
Attorney - General v Blake (2001)
Specific restitution was used to stop Blake making money out of publishing government secrets.
18 of 18

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

The Supreme court held that since these clauses genuinely supported the primary obligations, they could be seen as liquidated damages and not penalties.

Back

Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi; ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis (2015)

Card 3

Front

The claimant is only required to take reasonable steps to mitigate his incurred costs.

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

Unreasonable costs cannot be claimed.

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

Losses have to have been in the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time of contract and need to be seen as arising from the breach of contract.

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Contract law resources »