Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Breach of contract case of contract
Studying contract law
Breach of contract case of contract
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Breach of contract case of contract
Remedies for breach of contract
Contrary to what most people might think, the solution for breach of contract is not designed to punish the guilty party, instead it is to protect and preserve the rights and reasonable expectations of the party seeking reimbursement. The purpose of the contract law is that in the event of one party not fulfilling their obligation towards the other party, the party harmed will be compensated for its losses. In most cases the standard solution for breach of contract is money reimbursement, however, in some special cases the court can assign the party to perform a specific performance or injunction. With money reimbursement the court will allow the harmed party to prove to the court the amount of money necessary to reimburse for the losses, in other words, to prove that the amount of money the harmed company is seeking will reflect the guilty company performing the contract. The innocent party has three available options to them, which include self-help remedies, judicial remedies and arbitration.
Self-help remedies centre on lawful acts, which do not involve the option of referring to the court or arbitration. The innocent party under the law may refuse to perform their obligations as stated in the contract until the other party is ready or already has performed its obligations. The solutions of termination and withholding performance are closely related to the seriousness of the breach. Other self-help remedies that the innocent party may ...
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.
The court refused to help Campbell in enforcing its legal contract because “the court felt the contract was extremely one-sided. [ Also], it was wrong for Campbell to ask for the court’s help in enforcing this unconscionable bargain (one that “shocks the conscience of the court”)” (Rogers,
(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)
Phillip Clarke and Julie Clarke, Contract Law Commentaries, Cases and Perspectives, (Oxford University Press, 2nd ed, 2012) 432-3.
If a breach of contract is both material and opportunistic, the injured promisee has a claim in restitution to the profit realized by the defaulting promisor as a result of the breach. Liability in restitution with disgorgement of profit is an alternative to liability for contract damages measured by injury to the promisee.
After my first conversation with the grape producer I decided that purchasing his company’s product would be to my business’s benefit. The partnership began with my company faithfully receiving Muscadine grapes from Mr. Bre’nard Williams. Each delivery was prompt and at a consistent price. An invoice was sent with each delivery, requiring payment within 30 days. There may have been a few times that a late payment may have been made; however, it was done within 45 to 60 days. I also did not receive any interest or penalties on my late payments. The samples turned out to be very popular with my regular
"A contract is a legally enforceable promise or set of promises. In other words, when promises have the status of contract, the contracting party harmed by a breach of the contract is entitled to obtain legal remedies against the breaching party" (Mallor et al., 2015, p. 320)
Yes. Under the Uniform Commercial Code, when a non-breaching seller cannot reasonably resell the breached goods on the open market, he is entitled to damages in the amount of the full profit that he would have made from full performance by the buyer. Ordinarily, the seller would be entitled to the difference between the market price for the breached goods and the unpaid contract price, together with incidental damages and less the expenses saved because of the breach. However, if this measure of damages is inadequate to put the seller in as good a position as performance would have, the measure of damages is the profit that the seller would have made from full performance, plus incidental damages. If the seller cannot sell the breached goods
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.”
Based on common law and precedent, the English law of contract has been formulated and developed over a number of years with it’s primary purpose to provide a regulated framework within which individuals can contract freely. In order to ensure a contract is enforceable there are certain elements which must be satisfied, one of which is the doctrine of consideration. Lord Denning famously professed; “the doctrine of consideration is too firmly fixed to be overthrown by a side wind” . This is a crucial indication that consideration has long been regarded as the cardinal ‘badge of enforceability’ in the formulation and variation of contracts in English common law.
Another type of remedy is specific performance, this is where the court orders the defendant to carry out their part of the contract. This remedy is to put the parties in the position they would have been if the contract had been carried out correctly in the first place. For example the case of Falcke v Gray 1859 as the contract was for unique Chinese
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.
Examples may include simple liquidated debts, damages for non-performance of a contract, claims for differences under contracts held by both parties etc.
Breach of a contract – failure or refuse to perform than the contract has been breach than the other party has the right to terminate the contract.
This case mentioned below is a fine example of understanding the Law of Contract in a better manner. (Gerald, 2014).