Remedies(eunice) - Remedies Equitable Remedies...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Remedies Equitable Remedies (exceptionally granted): Specific Performance; Injunctions (given at Discretion of Courts Legal Remedies (commonly granted): Damages (Right to damages exists; ‘Action for an agreed sum’ Types of remedies: (1) Monetary remedies (2) Enforcement of the promise (3) Self-help remedies (see Discharge by Breach) Monetary Remedies 1. DAMAGES A. Compensation Principle The aim of damages is to compensate the Plaintiff for losses resulting from the Defendant’s breach. The aim is not punishment to the Defendant for breaching the contract. But see AG v Blake Where there is a ‘real’ loss, substantial damages are recoverable, but where there are none, only nominal damages are recoverable Surrey County Council v Bredero Homes Ltd (1993) 3 All ER 705 (Significance : The aim of damages is to compensate, and not punish the Defendant.) Facts : Plaintiff owners agreed to sell land to Defendants. Defendants promised to develop land according to the existing planning permission. Defendants then obtained new planning permission which allowed them to build 77 units instead of 72. Plaintiffs sued for damages calculated on the additional profits generated by the extra units. Held : Court held that the Plaintiff cannot calculate damages according to the extra profits of the Defendants and could only recover nominal damages. Since damage is based on compensation and not punishment, the law does not really compel one to perform contracts entered into. B. Why do we provide a remedy? Concept of the ‘performance interest’- idea that a contracting party is entitled to damages measured by the value of his defeated interest in having the contract performed Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd v Panatown Ltd [2001] 1 AC 518 Facts: Appellant was a building contractor and respondent company is one of a group of companies under the parent company, which also includes UIPL. Panatown entered into a contract with McAlpine as contract. Panatown claimed damages for alleged breaches by McAlpine of defective work and delay. Held: Appeal dismissed. Respondents entitled to substantial damages for the loss of the performance interest despite not suffering real loss. Radford v De Forberville (1977) 1 WLR 1262 (cited in Alfred McAlpine ) ( Significance : Cost of Cure Approach allowed despite Market Price being zero , since Plaintiff had intention to build the wall, and it was reasonable for him to desire to do so.) Facts : Plaintiff sold part of land to Defendant who agreed to build a brick wall to separate the 2 lands. Defendant later breached brick wall promise. It was agreed by both parties that the difference in market value for the land with a wall built would be zero. Held
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 02/07/2012 for the course LGST 101 taught by Professor Hsu during the Spring '11 term at Singapore Management.

Page1 / 14

Remedies(eunice) - Remedies Equitable Remedies...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online