“A breach of contract is committed when a party without lawful excuse fails or refuses to perform what is due from him under the contract, or performs defectively or anticipates himself from performing.” The laws around breach of contract have often been criticized for their unfair results this may be because the law does not aim to punish the defendant to instead aim for restoration for the claimant. The inadequacy of compensation for breach of contract is a widely recognized problem. It seems that there are few cases where the claimant is able to claim their full damages generally they are given a nominal sum that seems almost irrelevant to the claim for damages it is only on rare occasions where the claimant is completely restored. It has been argued that unless the damages are adequately remedies the remedy is “ ...a hollow one stripped of all practical force and void of content.” There is much difficulty in determining how to award damages and this has often led to unfairness.When recovering damages for breach of contract, there are generally three types of interest that the courts consider in order to find the most just result for the claimant. These three interests are: Expectation interest, Restitution interest and reliance interest. Expectation interest is the most common of the three and is used even though it is often criticized for creating results that are not relative to the breach. This essay will reflect upon these three types of interest in order to prove that damages for breach of contract do not always create a fair result. This is because the law in this area is inconsistent, especially in relationship to restitution interest that appears to be more of an exception to a rule rather than a gateway to re... ... middle of paper ... ...on. Failure is failure and the claiments should be further supported so that they may receive their damages. The award of expectation damages should not always be the first point of call for damages and it mainly leads to the award of a nominal sum. Receiving amenity/ nominal damagers has been argued to be a non successful way of retrieving damages. It has been argued a plaintiff who only recovers nominal damages has “…in reality lost and in reality the defendant has established a complete defense” This is true nominal damages are rarely relevant to the issue at hand and appear to be a way of giving the claimant something without giving them what they want. Overall the award for damages for breach of contract do not bring out the most fair result, this is because of the difficulties within the law and mainly because the courts will not punish the wrong dooer.
The decision in Equuscorp is significant, as it has made clear several principles that were once ambiguous under Australian law. It ratifies that restitutionary remedies are unavailable for a claim for money had and received where recovery would reduce coherence in the law. Furthermore, Equuscorp has confirmed that a bare cause of action can be assigned where the assignee has a genuine commercial interest in its enforcement.
In my opinion, if the jury in this case subtracted the contractual claims against the profits, they would have arrived at different damage/entitlement amounts. My guess is Main Line would have been entitled to much less than what was awarded in this case.
(1) When the contract was entered into, was it apparent that damages would be difficult to estimate in the event of a breach? (2) Was the amount set as damages a reasonable estimate and not excessive? (Cross & Miller, 2012)
Tort, one of the crucial subjects of study when analyzing common law jurisdictions. Tort, is an action which causes another person or party to suffer harm or loss []. The person who has committed a tortious act is called the tortfeasor while the person who suffered harm or loss from such act is called the injured party or the victim. Although crimes may be torts, torts may not be crimes [] simply because a tort may not have broken a law. In fact, one must understand that the key idea of tort is not to punish the tortfeasor(s) but rather to compensate the victim(s).
The second issue is whether or not the defendant has an obligation to reimburse for an injury. The outcome of this second issue depends whether or not it is rational for the defendant to have to pa...
Liability in restitution with disgorgement of profit is an alternative to liability for contract damages measured by injury to the promisee.” (2011)
It is essential to locate the claim for reparations within a framework of law and justice. The following four propositions are truths that attempt to conceptualize a legal framework for the formulation and prosecution of the claim for reparations.
Sentencing disparity refers to the differences in sentences that are passed down in the same instances. This can happen on a variety of fronts. It can occur with judges, in different states, states v. federal, different prosecutors, among different victims, etc. (Criminal – Sentencing…2017 p.4) A more specific definition from USLegal.com states that, “Sentence disparity refers to an inequality in criminal sentencing which is the result of unfair or unexplained causes, rather than a legitimate use of discretion in the application of the law.”. There are a variety of ways that sentencing disparity affects the justice system. There are three factors that disparity looms around; they are gender disparity, racial disparity, and age disparity. (4
Given that it lies within the domain of equity, the case law indicates a great flexibility in its application, both in the substantive requirements of proof demanded by the courts and in the manner in which the courts will satisfy the equity. It is the first of these aspects of the doctrine that I will examine in this essay. I will look at the shift in the evidentiary requirements and what a representation (or an assurance of rights), a reliance (a change of position on the basis of that assurance) and a detriment (or unconscionable disadvantage) - the three pre-requisites for a successful claim - have come to mean with regard to case law and in particular the judgement of Judge Robert Walker in the Court of Appeal in Gillett v. Holt[1], in which the plaintiff had been given repeated assurances over many decades that he would inherit the defendant's estate, and remained in service to him at least p... ... middle of paper ... ... operty, 16th Ed, Butterworths K. Gray & S.F Gray - Land Law, 2nd Ed, Butterworths Professor Cedric D Bell - Land: The Law of Real Property, 3rd Ed, Old
Having evaluated the current state of English contract law, mainly made up of piecemeal solutions, it can be seen that despite being satisfactory and doing its job, there still remain gaps within the law of contract where unfairness is not dealt with. Moreover, due to the ad hoc nature of those piecemeal solutions, the latter have often produced inconsistent justice and have manifested cases of unfairness. Hence, “a relatively small number of respected Justices have endeavored to draw attention to the fact that the application of a general principle might be useful and even necessary in English law.”
An analysis of trial fairness in the case of R. v Taylor (1994) 98 Cr. App. R. 361. Did media coverage affect the trial?
In order to critically assess the approach of the courts in allowing damages for pure economic loss in cases of negligence. One must first outline what pure economic loss is and what it consists off. Pure economic loss can be defined as financial loss or damage to one party caused by another party due to their negligence however the negligent act that is carried out is ‘purely’ economic and has no relation to any physical damage caused to any person or property. Numerous cases illustrate pure economic loss and losses that are deemed to be ‘purely economic’ are demonstrated under the Accidents Act 1976.
Goetz, Charles J. And Scott, Robert E. Liquidated Damages, Penalties and the Just Compensation Principle: Some Notes on an Enforcement Model and a Theory of Efficient Breach. Columbia Law Review, 7.4 (1977): 554-594. Print.
The old common law had a doctrine of absolute contract under which contractual obligations were binding no matter what might occur (Paradine v Jane, 1647). In order to ease the hardship which this rule caused in cases where the contract could not be properly fulfilled through no fault of either party but due to occurrence of unforeseen events, the doctrine of frustration was developed.
From the 1990s, the reports that cover the compensation cases increased dramatically in the mass media (Almond, 2004). There is a view that a huge number of tort cases in the ‘compensation culture’ are unjustified and unfair. In the mid-1990s, the term ‘compensation culture’ first appeared in a famous British newspaper (Levin, 1993). Actually, this is an extreme view, which will be criticized in this paper. This essay emphasizes the compensation culture is a myth (Morris, 2007). There are three reasons: Firstly, the data of the tort claims declined in recent years. Secondly, some victims do not receive the compensation or enough compensation that they deserve. Thirdly, the mass media and public organizations created the ‘compensation