Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Damages for breach of contract is a common law remedy, available as of right. [1] It is designed to compensate the victim for their actual loss as a result of the wrongdoer’s breach rather than to punish the wrongdoer. If no loss has been occasioned by the plaintiff, only nominal damages will be awarded.
Hadley & Anor v Baxendale & Ors [1854] EWHC J70 is a leading English contract law case. It sets the leading rule to determine consequential damages from a breach of contract: a breaching party is liable for all losses that the contracting parties should have foreseen.
In Australia, punitive damages are not available for breach of contract, [5] but are possible for tort cases.. The law is less settled regarding equitable wrongs. In Harris v Digital Pulse Pty Ltd, [6] the defendant employees knowingly breached contractual and fiduciary duties to their employer by diverting business to themselves and misusing its confidential information.
Damages in tort are awarded generally to place the claimant in the position in which he would have been had the tort not taken place. [16] Damages for breach of contract are generally awarded to place the claimant in the position in which he would have been had the contract not been breached. This can often result in a different measure of damages.
Consequential damages go beyond the contract itself and into the actions that arise from the failure to fulfill. The type of claim giving rise to the damages, such as whether it is a breach of contract action or tort claim, can affect the rules or calculations associated with a given type of damages. [3]
When damages are not predetermined/assessed in advance, then the amount recoverable is said to be "at large" (to be agreed or determined by a court or tribunal in the event of breach). The purpose of a liquidated damages clause is to increase certainty and avoid the legal costs of determining actual damages later if the contract is breached.
United States Naval Institute v. Charter Communications, Inc., 936 F.2d 692 (Second Cir. 1991) is a case discussing the extent and nature of contract damages. Damages for breach of contract are generally to provide damages for the injured party's loss; an injured party is not awarded damages based on the breaching party's gain. Snepp v.
The contract-tort distinction is significant because as a matter of public policy, punitive or exemplary damages are unavailable for contract claims, but are available for tort claims. In addition, consequential damages for breach of contract are traditionally subject to certain constraints not applicable to compensatory damages in tort actions ...