Contract Law – Exam Notes 2025
Lecture Notes Remedies
Additional Seminar
There are several basic things that need to be established for a contract
Comments
to need a remedy
A contract between the parties exists
1. There are no operative vitiating factors
2. A term of the contract has been breach
3. A remedy is available
Where a litigant is seeking a remedy, something is being sought by the
litigant from the court, usually it is for the other party to pay but make
them do something.
1. Where a litigant seeks a remedy, they will almost invariably be
asking the court to disturb an existing status quo
The main remedy is damages = monetary compensation for loss caused
by breach.
• There is an action for agreed sum, the person promised to pay
me I wish to enforce that
• Specific performance = the court orders the individual to
complete the contract as they said they would.
Damages
The idea of compensation – based on the claimant’s loss
• The general principial is that damages for breach of contract should
put the claimant in the position they would have been in if the
contract had been performed – the expectation loss principle (i.e.,
not their position they would have been in before the contract)
• Claimant can only claim more than nominal damages for breach
of contract if they have suffered loss as a result of the breach .
• Mitigation – C can’t claim for losses that reasonable steps could
have avoided
• Remoteness – C can’t claim cost of cure in all circumstances
• When can the damage be claimed for non- pecuniary loss (not
money loss)
• Can C ever opt to claim damages to put them in pre- contractual
positions.
, • Can damages for breach of contract ever be based on the benefit Additional Seminar
which the D obtains from the breach. Comments
** THIS CASE FOCUSES
An illustration on damages – Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth [1996] AC ON THE ISSUE OF
344 PROPORTI NALITY
• There was a contract to build a swimming pool for 18K. The pool
was 7ft 6 inch at the deep end, making it 9-18 inch shallower
than specified. The only way to get it to the right depth was to
reconstruct the whole pool, 22k. The value of the house was not
affected by this error.
• CC judge awarded 2500 for loss of amenity
• CA awarded cost of replacing pool
• HL could not claim the cost of replacing pool – it was
disproportionate.
Radford v DeFroberville [1977]1WLR 1262
• Play what sort of joining land to the defendant the defendant
agreed to build a boundary wall but then did not do so claimant
could claim the cost of building the wall the test is whether it
was reasonable as well as intent.
Mitigation
The principle of mitigation is quite simple, if you are the victim of the
breach of contract you cannot just let the losses pile up. You are under
duty to take reasonable steps to minimise losses.
Case example: Payzu v Saunders [1919]: contracted for the deliveries of
silk on credit the seller rep he dated contract because she thought
incorrectly that the buyer could only pay with the supply for cache bar
bought elsewhere and claimed an extra cost. The court of appeal stated
that the seller was not liable because the buyer submitted get a loss by
reconnecting with the original seller on cash terms.
What happens when there is a benefit what if the claimant also gets
benefits for the defendant breach does this mean that it’s offset?
British Westinghouse case (1912 ) the more efficient new turbines
reduce the loss flowing from the defective old ones.
, Globalia Business Travel v Fulton Shipping [2017] UKSC 43: the
defendant terminated charter of a cruise ship two years early normally
the defendant would’ve been liable to the owner for any lost profit on a Additional Seminar
rehire over the two years but the claimant cannot reach higher the ship Comments
so it’s all the shit for $23 million at the end of the two years valued
plummeted due to the financial crisis and only would’ve sold for 7
million the defendant claimed his benefit had to be taken into account
for the claim of damages. Supreme court state that it should NOT be
considered because the benefit had to be caused by the breach or acts
of mitigation.
• The claimant can't claim for losses which reasonable steps would
have been avoided
• Claimant can claim for reasonable costs incurred when
attempting to mitigate EVEN if unsuccessful
The rationale for mitigation is that that is the way that the law avoids
the waste of resources. What the law is doing that if the two parties got
together what would the loss then look like – it reduces the loss.
The other way to see it is, how far people go to take advantage. The C
had to do something the D has to be shown some respect. Why is the
claimant to take to account of the defendants interest as well as his
own.
Reading Notes
The principal determinant of the appropriate remised for a breach of
contract cannot be the parties’ intentions at the time the contract was
entered into. Rather they must reflect the value of the interest that they
are seeking to protect.
The greater the value that we place on the right to have the contract
preformed and interest that a party has in the contract properly performed,
the greater the remedy we should award to reflect this.
Each party in the contact should have some regard to the interests of the
other which is increasingly conceptualised as a requirement of “good faith”
Remedies can be grouped into three categories.
1. Compensatory damages
2. Other exceptional measures of damages
3. Specific remedies
Lecture Notes Remedies
Additional Seminar
There are several basic things that need to be established for a contract
Comments
to need a remedy
A contract between the parties exists
1. There are no operative vitiating factors
2. A term of the contract has been breach
3. A remedy is available
Where a litigant is seeking a remedy, something is being sought by the
litigant from the court, usually it is for the other party to pay but make
them do something.
1. Where a litigant seeks a remedy, they will almost invariably be
asking the court to disturb an existing status quo
The main remedy is damages = monetary compensation for loss caused
by breach.
• There is an action for agreed sum, the person promised to pay
me I wish to enforce that
• Specific performance = the court orders the individual to
complete the contract as they said they would.
Damages
The idea of compensation – based on the claimant’s loss
• The general principial is that damages for breach of contract should
put the claimant in the position they would have been in if the
contract had been performed – the expectation loss principle (i.e.,
not their position they would have been in before the contract)
• Claimant can only claim more than nominal damages for breach
of contract if they have suffered loss as a result of the breach .
• Mitigation – C can’t claim for losses that reasonable steps could
have avoided
• Remoteness – C can’t claim cost of cure in all circumstances
• When can the damage be claimed for non- pecuniary loss (not
money loss)
• Can C ever opt to claim damages to put them in pre- contractual
positions.
, • Can damages for breach of contract ever be based on the benefit Additional Seminar
which the D obtains from the breach. Comments
** THIS CASE FOCUSES
An illustration on damages – Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth [1996] AC ON THE ISSUE OF
344 PROPORTI NALITY
• There was a contract to build a swimming pool for 18K. The pool
was 7ft 6 inch at the deep end, making it 9-18 inch shallower
than specified. The only way to get it to the right depth was to
reconstruct the whole pool, 22k. The value of the house was not
affected by this error.
• CC judge awarded 2500 for loss of amenity
• CA awarded cost of replacing pool
• HL could not claim the cost of replacing pool – it was
disproportionate.
Radford v DeFroberville [1977]1WLR 1262
• Play what sort of joining land to the defendant the defendant
agreed to build a boundary wall but then did not do so claimant
could claim the cost of building the wall the test is whether it
was reasonable as well as intent.
Mitigation
The principle of mitigation is quite simple, if you are the victim of the
breach of contract you cannot just let the losses pile up. You are under
duty to take reasonable steps to minimise losses.
Case example: Payzu v Saunders [1919]: contracted for the deliveries of
silk on credit the seller rep he dated contract because she thought
incorrectly that the buyer could only pay with the supply for cache bar
bought elsewhere and claimed an extra cost. The court of appeal stated
that the seller was not liable because the buyer submitted get a loss by
reconnecting with the original seller on cash terms.
What happens when there is a benefit what if the claimant also gets
benefits for the defendant breach does this mean that it’s offset?
British Westinghouse case (1912 ) the more efficient new turbines
reduce the loss flowing from the defective old ones.
, Globalia Business Travel v Fulton Shipping [2017] UKSC 43: the
defendant terminated charter of a cruise ship two years early normally
the defendant would’ve been liable to the owner for any lost profit on a Additional Seminar
rehire over the two years but the claimant cannot reach higher the ship Comments
so it’s all the shit for $23 million at the end of the two years valued
plummeted due to the financial crisis and only would’ve sold for 7
million the defendant claimed his benefit had to be taken into account
for the claim of damages. Supreme court state that it should NOT be
considered because the benefit had to be caused by the breach or acts
of mitigation.
• The claimant can't claim for losses which reasonable steps would
have been avoided
• Claimant can claim for reasonable costs incurred when
attempting to mitigate EVEN if unsuccessful
The rationale for mitigation is that that is the way that the law avoids
the waste of resources. What the law is doing that if the two parties got
together what would the loss then look like – it reduces the loss.
The other way to see it is, how far people go to take advantage. The C
had to do something the D has to be shown some respect. Why is the
claimant to take to account of the defendants interest as well as his
own.
Reading Notes
The principal determinant of the appropriate remised for a breach of
contract cannot be the parties’ intentions at the time the contract was
entered into. Rather they must reflect the value of the interest that they
are seeking to protect.
The greater the value that we place on the right to have the contract
preformed and interest that a party has in the contract properly performed,
the greater the remedy we should award to reflect this.
Each party in the contact should have some regard to the interests of the
other which is increasingly conceptualised as a requirement of “good faith”
Remedies can be grouped into three categories.
1. Compensatory damages
2. Other exceptional measures of damages
3. Specific remedies
