Facts: The claimant was employed by the defendant. The defendant breached his own contract by replacing the claimant. The claimant wanted damages for the defendant ruining his reputation and ability to find another job

Held: No right to exemplary damages as that is only available in tort. Furthermore, it was impossible for the claimant to get damages for any emotional distress he suffered

Facts: The defendant (actor Robert Reed) had agreed to play the major role in a TV series which was going to filmed by Anglia Television. However, before taking part, he abandoned the television series and decided not to take part. He therefore terminated the contract and Anglia sued him for breach of contract and reliance loss because in preparation for filming they had incurred a certain amount of expenses amounting to £2750

Held: Anglia Television won the case

Facts: When he became a spy for the English government Blake signed an agreement that he would not release any confidential information. He was then recruited by the USSR, so became a double agent. He was arrested and imprisoned, but then fled to Russia and published a book about his secret service work. Most things he mentioned in his memoir was not meant to be known by the public, and he made a lot of money. He was sued and the government tried to claim as damages for breach of the Official Secrets Act that they should be entitled to a portion of the profits made from the memoir

Held: In the Court of Appeal, Woolf said that exceptionally, even though the primary aim is to award damages as compensation, it may be possible for the V to claim as damages a portion of the profit that the contract breaker makes. Woolf said that the exceptional circumstances where this is possible would be the following:

• When there is skimped performance
• When the defendant's breach is the very thing he contracted not to do

⇒ The House of Lords rejected the Court of Appeal's proposal, but nevertheless agreed that there are circumstances whereby it is possible for the victim of the breach to claim as damages an account of profit that the contract breaker makes. But the House of Lords said this should only be available in an ‘exceptional case’ when the claimant has a ‘legitimate interest’.

Facts: Waterlow had contracted to print a series of Portuguese bank notes for the bank. In breach of contract Waterlow had delivered the notes to some rogues believing that the rogues had the authority of the bank, which was not the case. The bank cancelled the contract to preserve the value of the Portuguese currency, which caused a further increase in their loss. Could they claim for that loss which has increased as a result of that action?

Held: It was held that they could. In order to keep the Portuguese happy with the value of their currency it was necessary that the rogue could not have a market for the particular currency they had acquired fraudulently. The loss the Portuguese bank suffered was higher through their mitigation but nevertheless the court held they had taken all reasonable steps, after noticing the breach, to keep the currency safe

Facts: Barclays contracted with the defendant, Fairclough, whereby the defendant would clean the roof of asbestos. The problem was that the defendant did not take appropriate care when starting to clean the roof leading to the whole premises being contaminated by asbestos. So it took a long time to clean and put right, so Barclays sued the defendant for damages for breach of contract. The defendant argued Barclays had been negligent and they should have supervised the procedure through their architecture services department. Barclays says no such duty arises in contract

Held: This was no defence. the obligation of Fairclough to get rid of the asbestos was a strict obligation and not an obligation to take care, so there was no contributory negligence by Barclays

Facts: Bliss was working for the defendant as an orthopaedic surgeon. Through the course of his employment he had a difficult relationship with a colleague which came to a boiling point and Bliss was asked to undergo a psychiatry examination. He refused and he was suspended. Bliss considered that this suspension was a repudiatory breach and therefore sued the defendant for breach of contract

Held: At first instance, the court awarded him £2000 damages for the mental distress that he had suffered as a result of suspension. However, the Court of Appeal refused to allow the recovery of such damages (following Addis v Gramophone (1909)). But, the Court of Appeal nevertheless said that the prohibition of non-pecuniary damages was a very general one and there was space for a limited amount of exception where emotional distress was a recoverable loss. Judge Dylan said it is possible to recover loss in cases of emotional damage where the contract, which has been broken, was itself a contract to provide piece of mind or freedom from distress. In this case though, it wasn’t so he was not entitled to damages because it was about a wrongful dismissal

Facts: There was a contract involving the supply of electricity turbines. The turbines had to be of special specification, so the appellant was to supply the turbines to the respondent on special specifications. The turbines did not comply with the specification, which was a breach of contract and eventually the buyer bought some different turbines which were much more efficient, but much more expensive. By doing this they recuperated the loss in electricity but sued the other party for damages Question: Could they recover anything for the loss they had suffered?

Held: The party had eliminated the cost incurred by the breach of the specification by buying different turbines, so held they were not entitled to anything

Facts: Hicks organised a competition in the newspaper: women were asked to take part in the competition by taking a photo of themselves and sending it in. They would be shortlisted by readers. Each participant had to pay 1 shilling to enter. The winner would be offered a role in 1 of the defendant's plays. Chaplin sent her photo and was voted the most beautiful woman in her region, but unfortunately did not receive the letter to say she was invited and put into the final - so she missed it. Her argument was that through a breach of contract she lost a chance to take part in the final and she claimed compensation

Held: The court had to consider how to award damages in the situation. Yes, there was a breach of contract and she had lost something, BUT there was no certainty she would win so how do you assess the loss of a chance to take part in the play?

⇒ The rule = the higher your chances of winning, the higher the amount of damages that will be given

⇒ When you sue for loss of a chance you will NEVER get 100% compensation because it is never 100% certain whether someone would have won

Facts: The plaintiff (i.e. claimant), through the defendant broker, had agreed to reinsure a fish farm (so there is both an insurance contract and a reinsurance contract). The liability for that reinsurance contract was 90% liability. It was a condition of the contract that the fish farm was under 24 hour surveillance. The owner of the farm told the plaintiff that this wasn’t possible, but the plaintiff did not follow up this conversation. The farm sustain substantial loss and therefore the plaintiff settled the claim and claimed 90% of that claim from the defendant on the reinsurance policy. The defendant denied liability arguing that there was no 24 hour security and therefore the plaintiff bought an action for breach of contract alleging negligence, and the defendant cannot argue for contributory negligence since the plaintiff had failed to follow up the conversation

Held: Contributory negligence can only apply when there is a concurrent duty of care that is both tortious and contractual. So contributory negligence is a defence for the party in breach, but in very specific circumstances

Facts: The plaintiffs (i.e. claimants) were farmers and they had bought a quantity of cabbage seeds from the defendant. They needed a particular type of cabbage seed, unfortunately they were given the wrong type of seed making their crop a disaster. They claimed, as consequential loss, the lost profit they should have been able to make had they been given the correct seeds.

Held: The sellers tried to argue the loss they should be liable for is limited to the price of the seeds which was over £200 but this was not accepted by the court. The plaintffs were able to prove that if they had the right seed they would have made a profit of around £60,000 so were able to claim that from the defendant

Facts: A six year old boy purchased a plastic catapult. Unfortunately, the catapult was not good quality so when he used it the catapult broke and got a bit of plastic in his eye – his parents, on his behalf, sued

Held: There was a breach of contract as the product was of unsatisfactory quality, so were able to claim compensation for the loss caused by the damage

Facts: The plaintiff (i.e. claimant) owned a flour mill. The plaintiff and the defendant contracted for the purchase of another crankshaft, so the machine for the mill would work. The crankshaft was not delivered in a reasonable time which breached the contract. The plaintiff sought money for loss of profit by suing the defendant as his flour mill did not work without the crankshaft.

Held: The court did not award the entirety of the damages that they were claiming because it was held the loss that they had suffered was too remote. The plaintiff had not told the defendant that they wanted him to make a replacement crankshaft quickly. Thus, the defednatn could not be liable for the plaintiff's losses because, in effect, the defendant could not contemplate the plaintiff's loss. So court made clear the test of remoteness of damages – claims for damages can only be made where damages:

• (a) Arise naturally from the breach, so will be compensated AND
• (b) The losses that may reasonably be supposed to have been within the reasonable contemplation of the parties will be rewarded

⇒ So, because the defendant was not told there was no replacement crankshaft it could not be within the defendant's contemplation that if they were late in delivering a replaced crankshaft the amount of damages Hadley would suffer would be so important.

Facts: The claimant was married to someone from Tunisia and had twin sons together. They divorced and she worried that her husband (who was now back in Tunisia) would abduct her sons and take them back with him. She therefore approached the defendant (a solicitor’s firm) to obtain residence. This action was successful and the defendant also notified the passport agency that the children should be on their mother’s passport (notification to the passport agency had to be renewed yearly, which is where the problem arose!). The defendant's solicitor’s failed to renew the notification to the passport agency. The father gained an English visa and put the children on his passport and went to Tunisia. The claimant sued the defendant for failing to notify the passport agency that the children should remain on her passport for another year

Held: She was successful as she had specifically asked the defendant to do this one thing

Facts: Jackson was buying dog chews from Thailand then was reselling them to somebody else. The person Jackson was reselling them on to knew he was importing the dog chews from a Thai manufacturer, but he didn’t know how much he was paying for them. The contract had been entered for 5 years. The way Jackson was paid by the customer was from credit directly from the bank (RBS). Everything was okay for 2 years, then suddenly RBS, by mistake, sent to the customer of Jackson a letter showing how much Jackson was paying for the chews to the Thai manufacturer. This was confidential information but the customer then realised that it would be cheaper for him to go directly from the Thai manufacturer because Jackson was making a huge profit. The customer terminated the contract with Jackson and went directly to the Thai manufacturer for business. Jackson sued RBS for the loss of profit he expected to make from his lost customer for the remaining part of the contract (3 years). RBS claimed that this was not foreseeable and they claimed that their liability was not limited

Held: The House of Lords held in favour of Jackson because it was within the contemplation of the parties that if confidential information were to be released to the customer the customer would terminate the contract and contract directly with the Thai manufacturer. Thus, RBS was liable for the profit that Jackson would have made for the remaining part of the contract.

Facts: Jarvis had book a holiday for himself and family. He booked it on the strength of the holiday brochure. When they arrived it was a disaster and the family had an awful time and therefore sued for breach of contract for loss of enjoyment

Held: Court agreed

Facts: Johnson was late in his mortgage so needed to sell some of his properties. He entered into negotiation with Agnew so Agnew would buy the properties. Even though a contract was created Agnew failed to complete the contract and the vendors, Johnson, asked and obtained a decree of specific performance by the courts. An order of specific performance was issued so the courts issued an order forcing Agnew to buy the property. The order of specific performance was not complied by Agnew therefore the bank repossessed Johnson’s property since by that time he was very much in arrear and sold his property. But the money gained from this was not enough to clear all the debt so Johnson sued Agnew for the difference. Was this possible because he had opted for specific performance? And was he entitled to get the difference?

Held: Court said he was entitled to get the difference since not to do so would have created an injustice. Damages were to be calculated at the time specific performance was aborted (instead, of as is usual, when the breach occurred)

Facts: This case involved a contract for the sale of oil. The contract was created on 4th June and the oil was to be delivered in September. The defendant ended the contract a short time after the contract was created, which was accepted by the plaintiff on 18th June. At the time the contract was created the price of oil was very volatile. So the plaintiff had accepted the breach on 18th June so should have started mitigating their loss by finding an alternate way of getting oil as soon as they accepted the breach. At the time, they should have therefore accepted oil at the price as it was on 19th June. The plaintiff, however (as the market was volatile), waited another 2 weeks before buying some by which time the price of oil had gone up and gone down but was still more expensive when they bought it than the price they would have paid if they bought it on 19th June. At what point should the assessment for damages take place?

Held: They should have bought it on 19th June and so were able to recover the difference between the 2 dates

Facts: Mr Malik worked for the BCCI (a bank) and then the BCCI collapsed spectacularly following corruption. Malik was not involved in any way with the corruption but he struggled to get another job. He claimed that he should be entitled to claim compensation against the BCCI because he had suffered stigma because his name was badly associated with the BCCI

Held: The court agreed and said during an employment relationship the employer owes a duty of trust and confidence to their employees. So, the court said that the BCCI, due to being involved in corruption, had acted in breach of the employer duty of trust which had a negative effect on the employee’s commercial reputation. Malik was therefore awarded some financial compensation

Facts: A salvage case where a company was allowed to bid for the right to find a vessel which was said to have sunk somewhere off the coast of Australia. In fact, the vessel was never there so the company had some expenses in trying to find the vessel that never existed

Held: The claim was far too speculative and therefore they could not use reliance loss to try to recoup some of their lost money

Facts: Parson was a pig farmer and needed to feed his pigs. He contracted with the defendant where Uttley was going to supply him with a special feeding machine which was called a hopper where the farmer could store a lot of food. When the defendant brought and installed the pig hopper he left the vent closed and therefore there was no ventilation which made the nuts mouldy and the pigs ill, eventually killing them. Were the pigs deaths foreseeable or not? The Defendant contended this damage was too remote as it was not in the contemplation of the parties that the poor ventilation would cause e-coli and death of the pigs

Held: The court held that the degree of the loss did not have to come within the test provided but the type of loss did. The majority did not make the distinction between the illness and the death because for them it was common sense that if the pigs ate mouldy food it is foreseeable they will get ill and death is simply a different degree of the same loss and therefore the extent – therefore the extent was within the contemplation of the party

Facts: Tito v Wadell No2 (1977) was applied in this case, but see Wrotham Park Estate (1974) and - AG v Blake (1998). The defendant was a development company and they had entered into a contract with the plaintiff (i.e. claimant) whereby they were going to build a certain number of houses on a particular development. They agreed the defendant would build 72 houses on a particular area of Surrey CC. Later permission was granted to build another 5 houses, but they built more than the extra 5 houses without permission. Surrey CC sued them for a portion of their profit

Held: urrey CC could not show they had suffered any kind of loss and were not entitled to a portion of their profit (Tito v Wadell No2 (1977) was therefore applied here)

Facts: A vessel was chartered to take a cargo of sugar to Basra where there was a sugar market. The charterers intended to sell the sugar immediately upon arrival in Basra. However, the vessel was delayed by 9 days by which time the price of sugar had dropped. The charterer therefore sued for the losses they have incurred and for the difference they would have been entitled to get upon arrival and what they got 9 days later which was considerably less. Question = was it foreseeable the plaintiff wanted to sell immediately and if the price of sugar dropped a loss would be suffered by the plaintiff?

Held: The charterer was entitled to recover the difference they would have been entitled to get upon arrival and what they got 9 days later. The reasoning of this was that even though the owner of the ship did not know that the charterer intended to sell the sugar straight away upon arrival, he knew the charterer was in the sugar business and knew the price of sugar varies so it was not unlikely that if there was a delay and the price of sugar dropped they could foresee their breach would cause the plaintiff a loss

• The court here (criticising the approach of the Court of Appeal in Victoria Laundry (Windsors)Ltd v Newman Industries ltd (1949) said it is not possible in contract to have the same foreseeability test as in tort (As Asquith LJ suggested there was). So, in this case the House of Lords held that the defendant is only liable for those losses which he foresaw or could have foreseen at the time the contract was being made as not unlikely to result from the breach of contract – this approach is stricter than tort!

Facts: There was a lot of phosphate on an island and an English company got a license to mine the phosphate. There was an obligation that the English company had to replant some trees after the mining. The inhabitants were rehoused to Fiji throughout the duration of the mining, but when they returned to the island the trees that the company said they would replant hadn’t been replanted - so the company was breaching the contract. As a result, the inhabitants claimed compensation of the profit the company had made

Held: This was not possible, because the victim of the breach could not establish any kind of loss they had suffered as a result of the breach. Although there had been a contractual breach, the court recognised that damages were awarded in a purely compensatory manner

Facts: The plaintiffs (i.e. claimants) had a laundry business and wanted to expand their laundry business as there was a shortage of laundry services after the war. To do this they contracted with the defendant to buy a boiler. It was agreed the boiler would be delivered on 5 June. The boiler was not delivered until November, which led to Victoria Laundry suing Newman for damages. They asked for the loss of business they would have had had they received the boiler on time and also claimed that had they had the boiler they would have been able to win a lucrative government contract so sued for this too

Held: Applying Hadley v Baxendale the court only allowed the recovery of the losses of the business but they did not allow the loss of the lucrative contract from the government (even though they would have got it) as it was seen to be too remote. Even though Neman had specific technical knowledge (they knew that the boiler was going to be used for a very specific purpose) it was still not within the contemplation of the parties that the plaintiff would then bid for the government contract

• This case reformulated the Hadley case in terms of foreseeability, therefore applying similar standards to tort – but this was criticised in The Heron II case

Facts: The court talked about possibility of claiming the profit of the contract breaker on the basis of the hypothetical release of the contract. The owners of an estate sold part of their estate to a developer. They put a restriction in the contract (i.e. a covenant) which restricted the right to develop a portion of the estate and they had to obtain the permission of the estate manager first if they wanted to develop. The estate owner died and everything passed on. The area was eventually sold to a local authority which obtained planning permission – this was eventually sold to the defendant. The heir to the estate reminded the defendant that there was still an existing covenant. The defendant breached the covenant and built houses and therefore the plaintiff (i.e. claimant) sued asking for the demolition of the houses and, if this was not possible, for a portion of the profit

Held: The court allowed the plaintiff to claim a portion of the profit on the basis that they could have, if they had wanted, tried to obtain a release from the covenant by negotiating a change in the price. The court held that 5% in this hypothetical release was roughly the right amount and therefore the hypothetical release (the 5% which the defendant could have negotiated to circumvent the covenant) was the loss that the plaintiff had suffered