Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Contract - Remedies
Remedies - damages, heads of damages, equitable remedies
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| What are the remedies available for contracts? | Damages, recission, restitution, estoppel, injunction, specific performance + statutory remedies (e.g. right to reject) |
| what is recission? | puts parties back into pre contractual position |
| when is recission suitable as a remedy? | misrepresentation (negligent & fraudulent) |
| what is restitution? | restores parties to position before wrongdoing |
| when is restitution suitable as a remedy? | duress |
| What is estoppel (promissory)? | partiers stopped from going back on promise |
| when are injunctions awarded? | to prevent a breach |
| AB v CD | example of an injunction being awarded |
| Page One Records v Britton | inequitable for the court to award an injunction or specific performance as a remedy to personal services (troggs) |
| Irani v Southampton AHA | Damages are the normal remedy for wrongful dismissal, but an injunction was awarded here |
| What is specific performance? | a party is forced to complete/perform the contract |
| When is specific performance suitable as a remedy? | where something is unique - often land, can be property. Not for personal services. Only available if damages are not adaquate |
| Beswick v Beswick | Widow not paid, and the legal advisors cannot sue for another persons losses. Damages not available, so specific performance used |
| Patel v Ali | unfair to award specific performance due to undue hardship (illness) - specific performance is given at courts discretion. |
| What must you prove, for damages to be awarded? | causation (loss must be a consequence of the breach), can't be too remote, msut show mitigation of loss |
| County Ltd v Girozentrale Securities | D's breach did cause some losses - other causes didn't break the chain of causation |
| Hadley v Baxendale | Too remote (not in contemplation that mill needed the crankshaft) |
| Victoria Laundry v newman | 2 'limbs' - it is expected that you are aware of losses that are common knowledge but not abnormal losses (boiler laundrette) |
| The Heron II | Buying and selling sugar case - loss not too remote as the loss of profit was not unlikely to result (price fallen) |
| Parsons v Uttley Ingham | Pignut Hopper Case - breach caused pigs to be poisoned and died - extent of damage needn't be foreseeable so not too remote |
| The Alaskan Trader | spent money on boat despite aniticpatory breach - so couldn't claim as they didn't mitigate losses |
| Thai Airways | Super mitigation - didn't make a loss |
| Pilkington v wood | Shows limits of what is reasonable to mitigate your losses (claiming for compensation not reasonable) |
| What are the different heads of damage? | Loss of barigain, reliance loss, liquidated damages |
| What is loss of bargain? | aka expectation loss - puts C in position they would be in if contract had been performed |
| Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth | loss of bargain not awarded as rebuilding the pool would be unreasonable - nominal damages awarded |
| What is reliance loss? | places C in position they would have been in if contract hadn't been made |
| Anglia TV v Reed | spent money preparing for film, then actor dropped out - reliance loss |
| What are liquidated damages? | amount if fixed by a term in the contract |
| Parkingeye v Beavis | penalty payment for the parking spot - court said that these clauses are binding unless 'exorbitant or unconscionable' |
Created by:
Oscar.G
Popular Law sets