Remedies. There are two common law remedies
∙ Recession.
∙ Damages.(core of the chapter)
i. Recession.
To set aside the contract and parties are relieved of their future obligations recessions
are available in two situations:
∙ If there is a breach of condition.
∙ If there is a fundamental breach of innominate term.
Damages:
The key purpose of conferring damages is not to penalize breaching parties, but rather to offer
compensation to the aggrieved party. Courts employ a method that purposes to place the injured
party in the place they could have been had the contract been fulfilled.
Golden Strait Corp vs. Nippen Ysen Kubishika Kaisha (The Golden Victory 2007):
Damages may be decreased if it can be proven that clear circumstances occurred which would
decrease the extent of damages awarded to the claimant, known as contributory negligence.
Bunga SA v Nidera 2015: Court made damages available for both actual and anticipatory
breach of contract.
Robinson vs. Harman 1848: the calculation of damages is meant to recompense the injured
party for the losses experienced due to the breach, rather than to penalize the breaching party.
In the scenario of Hooper vs Oates 2013; Johnson v Agnew 1980, the correct date to assess
damages is considered to be the date of the breach.
Bacciottini v Gotelee 2016: Damages are minimized where certain occasions happen among the
date of breach and the time of tribunal.
, iv. Methods to calculate damages:
Expectation Measures: The expectation measure utilized by the court aims to place the
innocent party in the position they would have been in if the contract had been fulfilled. Lord
Nichols in Nykredit vs. Edward 1997 referred to this approach as a contractual measure of
damages, involving two distinct methods.
i. Difference in value = (What innocent party expect to gain – what innocent party
actually received).
When difference in value is not avaialable then court allows cost of cure
ii.Cost of Cure. When determining damages, the court might take into account the expenses tied
to restoring the innocent party to the position they would have been in if the contract had been
fulfilled. This may raise questions regarding whether the cost of rectifying the breach or the
difference in value should be considered.
Watts vs Morrow 1991 it was established that if the defendant fails to perform or performs
inadequately, the claimant is entitled to the cost of rectification.
Giedo van der Garde Bv vs Force India Formula One Team 2010: the loss of a chance can be
a basis for a claim for the loss of expectation. However, determining the amount of such
damages can be highly speculative.
Under certain circumstances, the court may refrain from awarding damages based on the cost of
rectification if this cost greatly exceeds the benefit the innocent party expected from the
performance.
Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth 1995: which involved a contract for the construction of a pool
with specific dimensions, illustrates that damages for breach of contract may not only cover
financial losses but also non-financial losses such as emotional distress. The court, in this case,
awarded damages for disappointment and distress rather than the cost of rectification, as the
latter was deemed disproportionate.
∙ Recession.
∙ Damages.(core of the chapter)
i. Recession.
To set aside the contract and parties are relieved of their future obligations recessions
are available in two situations:
∙ If there is a breach of condition.
∙ If there is a fundamental breach of innominate term.
Damages:
The key purpose of conferring damages is not to penalize breaching parties, but rather to offer
compensation to the aggrieved party. Courts employ a method that purposes to place the injured
party in the place they could have been had the contract been fulfilled.
Golden Strait Corp vs. Nippen Ysen Kubishika Kaisha (The Golden Victory 2007):
Damages may be decreased if it can be proven that clear circumstances occurred which would
decrease the extent of damages awarded to the claimant, known as contributory negligence.
Bunga SA v Nidera 2015: Court made damages available for both actual and anticipatory
breach of contract.
Robinson vs. Harman 1848: the calculation of damages is meant to recompense the injured
party for the losses experienced due to the breach, rather than to penalize the breaching party.
In the scenario of Hooper vs Oates 2013; Johnson v Agnew 1980, the correct date to assess
damages is considered to be the date of the breach.
Bacciottini v Gotelee 2016: Damages are minimized where certain occasions happen among the
date of breach and the time of tribunal.
, iv. Methods to calculate damages:
Expectation Measures: The expectation measure utilized by the court aims to place the
innocent party in the position they would have been in if the contract had been fulfilled. Lord
Nichols in Nykredit vs. Edward 1997 referred to this approach as a contractual measure of
damages, involving two distinct methods.
i. Difference in value = (What innocent party expect to gain – what innocent party
actually received).
When difference in value is not avaialable then court allows cost of cure
ii.Cost of Cure. When determining damages, the court might take into account the expenses tied
to restoring the innocent party to the position they would have been in if the contract had been
fulfilled. This may raise questions regarding whether the cost of rectifying the breach or the
difference in value should be considered.
Watts vs Morrow 1991 it was established that if the defendant fails to perform or performs
inadequately, the claimant is entitled to the cost of rectification.
Giedo van der Garde Bv vs Force India Formula One Team 2010: the loss of a chance can be
a basis for a claim for the loss of expectation. However, determining the amount of such
damages can be highly speculative.
Under certain circumstances, the court may refrain from awarding damages based on the cost of
rectification if this cost greatly exceeds the benefit the innocent party expected from the
performance.
Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth 1995: which involved a contract for the construction of a pool
with specific dimensions, illustrates that damages for breach of contract may not only cover
financial losses but also non-financial losses such as emotional distress. The court, in this case,
awarded damages for disappointment and distress rather than the cost of rectification, as the
latter was deemed disproportionate.
