TEST What did the parties agree to be liable for in the agreement What losses

Test what did the parties agree to be liable for in

This preview shows page 31 - 33 out of 34 pages.

TEST: What did the parties agree to be liable for in the agreement ? What losses did D expressly or impliedly consent to be liable for? Do not look at the damage occasioned, but rather at the nature of the contract HYPO: Blacksmith who fails to properly shoe a horse – not liable that the man riding it misses his marriage - not foreseeable HYPO: Contract of carriage of sugar from to Bazara. Purchaser is going to sell it on the open market. Carrier knows its cargo is sugar and that it’s going to a port with a open market. Carrier delivers a week late. Market price of sugar on the day should have delivered is 7% higher than the market price when it arrives. For carrier: do not care what they carry & not foreseeable what price will be at any given moment least cost avoider is the owner of the cargo. Carrier cannot be expected to be expert in sugar For P: so long as carrier knows it is sugar and that there is an open market, seems foreseeable that a consequence of late delivery is fluctuation in price – awardable as expectancy loss This is something they should have had in their contemplation ( Hadley ) HYPO: B, in breach of contract to invest in lumber, invests in distillery instead , which makes 5x the profit the lumber would have made. Can A sue B for the additional 7% profit that B made on the investment actually made instead of the one agreed on? P can only sue for his loss and not for D’s profit [Only circumstance that you can recover additional profit is breach of fiduciary relationship, embezzlement - constructive trust created and any profit from subsequent venture is recoverable.] I f you can’t prove what you would’ve had, then you go for reliance damages and get back what you paid to other party Restitution does not work here – can recover what you would confer on them, but not what they gained elsewhere HYPO: K to purchase gowns for daughter’s wedding . Tailor making the gowns fails to deliver in time. Father is distraught. Can P recover the additional emotional loss of daughter? No – (1) purchaser is dad, not daughter, (2) unless expressly communicated this is what dresses for it’s a special loss that will not fall within domain of foreseeability 31
Image of page 31
HYPO: Designer poorly constructs wedding dress purchased by dad . Daughter has to have another hurriedly made and not what she wants. He knows he is specifically commissioned to make wedding dress. Dad recover for daughter’s mental anguish? No – purchaser is dad, not daughter – but given it is made for her if P expressly told designer this then there is better chance But generally goes back to nature of what is agreed – daughter’s distress was that she did not like her dress and was not well-made – loss that is reasonably foreseeable is cost of another dress, but not mental anguish (will be very hard to recover) HYPO: Contract for carriage of corpse - all about comforting the distressed so foreseeable that breach will cause such distress **So long as the kind of harm is foreseeable you can recover even though extent of the harm is unforeseeable (pig-hopper
Image of page 32
Image of page 33

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 34 pages?

  • Summer '11
  • Jacobson
  • The Land, promise

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture