Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Common Law Remedies And Damages Notes

Law Notes > Contract Law Notes

This is an extract of our Common Law Remedies And Damages document, which we sell as part of our Contract Law Notes collection written by the top tier of University Of Ottawa students.

The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Contract Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

TOPIC 5: COMMON LAW REMEDIES, DAMAGES REMEDIES

Injunctions (equitable)

Specific Performance (equitable)

Damages

Expectation reliance loss of income intangible losses One or more remedies can be available for breach of contract, but damages are most common (compensation for loss suffered as a result of the breach). PL rarely acquires specific performance, but rather the monetary value of X because the courts do not like to compel individuals. Types of damages include: 1) 2) 3) 4)

compensatory punitive liquidated nominal

Depending on the issues at stake, there are various ways of calculating relief. Damages protect the following interests: 1) Reliance Interest (BACKWARD): monetary compensation for expenses made towards performance of K. Puts PL into position before K was made, had she not entered contract. "Give me back what I've lost" 2) Expectation Interest (FORWARD): monetary compensation intended to put PL in position she would have been in had K been performed (lost profit or substitution performance) a. Most common form of relief b. Monetary value PL expected to receive as benefit of contract c. Forward looking and places innocent party in position expected to be in after contract was properly performed 3) Restitution interest: Restoration to the PL of a benefit conferred on DF to which she is not entitled. Damages are too remote where (Hadley v Baxendale):

1 1) The loss was not naturally occurring (DF cannot be liable for something he didn't see coming) a. ASK: did a reasonable person contemplate that X loss would have occurred at the time of the K?
2) Was the breach within the reasonable contemplation of both parties? (Were the risk of losses in special circumstances were communicated to the DF).
*Independently sufficient. All damages subject to the remoteness principle. CASE RATIO FACTS REASONS McRae v
PL owned vessel expectation damages cannot be awarded Commonwealth being refitted because it is impossible to Disposals 1951 Even if expectation contracted to assess the loss of a non
(Aust HC) damages are have it upgraded existing ship difficult to for salvage work
the K did not guarantee the salvage operation calculate, reliance and bought REFITTED damages may be equipment for this would be successful even if the ship existed - any VESSEL awarded.
ship sailed from monetary value would be Sydney to X hopeless speculation I: Can the PL destination for
claim for conditioning not allowable because it recover for wasted delivery but sank was done prior to K expenditure for
PL claiming for
Purchaser bought a risk Commission's equipment, and wasn't certain about breach in not reconditioning and profit (it was mere gossip) delivering?
damages for lost D: appeal allowed; revenue nominal damages
$50 CASE Bowlay Logging Ltd v Domtar Ltd 1982 BCCA BAD TIMBER BARGAIN I: Was the trial judge accurate in awarding 250$ in nominal damages?
D: Yes

2 RATIO

FACTS
- B contracted with D for timber sale Reliance damages
- B supposed to cut cannot be awarded and skid logs but D where result of didn't supply PL's loss is a bad enough trucks for bargain. DF has timber onus to prove that - B sued for 124 K only nominal (to be in position damages should be had K never awarded if losses of occurred) the breach were less than if K completed.

REASONS
- no evidence of loss indicating excessive costs that were spent in reliance of K
- trial judge did not err by not including start up costs
- expectation damages not awarded because K unprofitable
- loss was due to inefficient contract, not breach

Sunshine Vacation Villas Ltd v Governor and Company of Adventures of England Trading Into Hudson's Bay 1984 BCCA

Reliance damages cannot be coupled with expectation damages; only one can be recovered given that they are alternatives.

TRAVEL AGENTS
+ BAY I: Was damage award at trial inaccurate?
D: appeal allowed in part; damages reduced to 195 K (amount of lost capital after restoring 19 K by trial judge)

- Pl given license to operate travel agencies in 6 stores at the Bay (DF)
- PL discovered contracts would be terminated because existing licensees would be renewed so they sued for loss of capital (increase in line of credit - 80 K)

- the PL must elect to acquire reliance or expectation damages, but not both
- loss of capital/wasted expenditures (reliance) and loss of profit (expectation)
- here, expectation damages would be too speculative so loss of capital (reliance), should be recovered.

When choosing between expectation and reliance costs, look to whether the client has made a bad bargain. If yes, this may preclude PL from claiming reliance damages. Expectation damages are awarded for the most part. If they are impossible to award, we look to reliance interests. The interest being measured is our scope and there are two primary methods of assessment: expectation (puts party in the position they would be in had the contract been performed) and reliance (puts party in position they would have been in had K never been made, but cannot award if a bad bargain was made).

CASE 3

RATIO

FACTS

REASONS

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Contract Law Notes.