Remedies for Breach - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 18
About This Presentation
Title:

Remedies for Breach

Description:

They are calculated on the basis of looking at what the position of the ... CASE: Sumpter v Hedges [1898] Equitable Remedies. Specific Performance ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:389
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 19
Provided by: rsh84
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Remedies for Breach


1
Remedies for Breach
Remedies
Equitable remedies
Common law
Damages
Recission
Restitution
Specific Performance
Injunction
Quantum meruit
Anton Piller order
2
Damages
  • Main purpose of damages is to enable the innocent
    party to receive MONETARY COMPENSATION.
  • Damages are a common law remedy and awarded as of
    right.
  • They are calculated on the basis of looking at
    what the position of the plaintiff would have
    been if the contract had been properly performed.
  • They are assessed on a once and for all basis at
    the date of breach.

3
Damages
  • Steps in determining an award of damages

4
Damages
  • Causation
  • Is there a causal connection between the breach
    and the loss suffered?
  • The plaintiff must show that the breach of
    contract by the defendant was the cause of the
    loss.
  • The general test used by the courts is the same
    as that used in assessing damages in general
    the but for test
  • CASE Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation
    Ltd (in rec) (1987)
  • Note the but for test is not an exclusive test,
    e.g. there is the common sense test, which was
    approved in
  • CASE Chappel v Hart (1998)

5
Damages
  • Remoteness
  • The loss or injury must not be too remote, i.e.
    losses must be reasonably related to the
    contract.
  • Hadley v Baxendale (1854) indicates 2 types of
    loss are recoverable
  • loss arising from the breach in the usual or
    normal course of things and
  • loss arising from special or exceptional
    circumstances where it can be shown that the
    defendant had actual knowledge of the plaintiffs
    needs
  • CASE Victoria Laundry v Newman Industries
    1949)
  • CASE Commonwealth of Australia v Amann Aviation
    Pty Ltd (1991)

6
Damages
  • Damages
  • The aim of damages is to put the injured party
    back as close to the position they would have
    been in had the breach never occurred.
  • Damages are recoverable for provable or economic
    loss as well as
  • expectation losses
  • reliance losses
  • CASE Commonwealth of Australia v Amann Aviation
    Pty Ltd (1991)
  • distress and disappointment
  • CASE Jarvis v Swan Tours 1972
  • CASE Jackson v Horizon Holidays 1975
  • CASE Baltic Shipping Co Ltd v Dillon (1993)
  • physical injury
  • CASE Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd
    1936
  • Difficulty in calculation is not a ground for
    disallowing a claim
  • CASE Howe v Teefy (1927)

7
Damages
  • Mitigation of damages
  • The plaintiff must take reasonable steps to
    minimise or mitigate their loss. Failure to do so
    can result in a reduction of damages.
  • CASE Payzu v Saunders 1919
  • Mitigation is a question of fact and the onus of
    proof is on the defendant.

8
Damages
Damages
Ordinary (Usual remedy)
Exemplary (punitive)
Nominal (No actual loss suffered)
General
Special
9
Types of Damages
  • The type of damages that will be awarded will be
    determined by the seriousness of the breach and
    whether the contract has specified the amount of
    damages to be paid in the event of breach
  • nominal damages plaintiffs legal rights have
    been infringed but they have suffered no actual
    loss
  • CASE Charter v Sullivan 1957
  • ordinary damages loss suffered by the plaintiff
    as a result of the breach and can be either
    general or special damages
  • exemplary damages punitive and may be awarded
    for non-economic loss
  • CASE Jackson v Horizon Holidays 1975

10
Types of Damages
  • Liquidated damages
  • Awarded where a plaintiff is able to sue for a
    specified sum, which must be a genuine or bona
    fide pre-estimate of the actual loss that will
    flow from the breach.
  • Unliquidated damages
  • Awarded where an injured party has no fixed sum
    in mind and leaves the court to decide the
    amount.
  • Penalty
  • A threat to ensure performance and not
    enforceable because they are not a genuine
    pre-estimate of the damage that will result from
    the breach
  • CASE Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v New Garage and
    Motor Co Ltd 1915

11
Equitable Remedies
Equitable Remedies
Recission
Restitution
Specific Performance
Injunction
Quantum meruit
Anton Piller Order
  • These are discretionary remedies at equity and
    are only granted where damages are not an
    adequate remedy.

12
Equitable Remedies
  • Rescission
  • A right available to an injured party.
  • Does not require the intervention of the court.
  • Entitles the injured party to set the contract
    aside and is only available for breach of a
    condition.
  • Substantial restoration must be possible as the
    injured party is restored to their
    pre-contractual position.
  • The right to rescission is lost if the injured
    party
  • continues with the transaction
  • fails to act or act within a reasonable time or
  • if an innocent third party acquires an interest
    in the subject matter.

13
Equitable Remedies
  • Restitution
  • Is based on the concept of unjust enrichment and
    sometimes referred to as quasi-contract.
  • The plaintiff must establish
  • the benefit was at the plaintiffs expense
  • it would be unjust to allow the defendant to keep
    that benefit or enrichment and
  • CASE Pavey Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul (1987)
  • the defendant must obtain a benefit or
    enrichment
  • the defendant has no defences to rely upon.

14
Equitable Remedies
  • Restitution can be used if
  • the defendant has received a sum of money from
    the plaintiff and there has been a total failure
    of consideration or a mistake of fact
  • CASE McCormack v Commonwealth (1984)
  • under a mistake of law
  • CASE David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth
    Bank (1992)
  • under duress or compulsion.
  • Restitution makes use of the doctrine of quantum
    meruit
  • CASE Pavey Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul (1987)
  • CASE Planche v Colburn (1831)
  • CASE Sumpter v Hedges 1898

15
Equitable Remedies
  • Specific Performance
  • A remedy compelling performance.
  • It is only granted at the courts discretion
    where the court can supervise the implementation
    of the contract.
  • It is not available in contracts involving
    personal services because the court is unable to
    adequately supervise the task CASE Ryan v
    Mutual Tontine Westminster Chambers Assoc 1893

16
Equitable Remedies
  • Injunction
  • It is a restraining order which prevents a person
    from breaking a contract.
  • It is a discretionary remedy and aims at
    enforcing negative promises.
  • It normally cannot be used where it would achieve
    the same result as specific performance.
  • CASE Lumley v Wagner (1852)

17
Equitable Remedies
  • Mareva Injunction
  • Prevents the defendant from removing assets from
    the courts jurisdiction.
  • CASE Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International
    Bulk Carriers SA, The Mareva 1975
  • Anton Piller Order
  • Prevents a defendant from disposing of any
    evidence before trial.
  • CASE Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes
    Ltd 1976
  • Quantum Meruit
  • Arises where there has been part-performance, and
    only where it can be implied that payment would
    be made.

18
Statutes of Limitations
  • An injured party can loose their right to an
    action unless they act within a certain time
    period.
  • The statutes of limitations of the States and
    Territories determine the time limits within
    which an injured party must take action.
  • Prevents actions remaining open indefinitely.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com