S sells B a shipment of widgets that are usable, but not as warranted. What is the measure of B’s damages if B sues S for breach of contract.
2007-09-03 12:50:13 · 4 answers · asked by Sunshine 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Robinson v Harman:
Where a party sustains a loss by reason of a breach of contract, he is, so far as money can do it, to be placed in the same situation, with respect to damages, as if the contract had been performed
There are two heads under which B might claim damages: expectation and reliance. The expectation interest would cover the difference in value between what was provided and what was given. The reliance loss would be for things such as expenditures in the expectation of using the widgets for their intended purpose, subject to the rules of remoteness in Hadley v Baxendale.
Hadley's Case has 2 rules of remoteness, it covers 2 sorts of losses: (1) Those losses which arise naturally as a result of the breach and (2) those losses within the knowledge of the parties at the time the contract was made
2007-09-04 01:50:24 · answer #1 · answered by kheperure 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The cost of the widgets plus court costs plus lawyer fees, if a lawyer was retained. Punitive damages would not apply, as the shipment would have been made without malice. The purpose of a lawsuit is to restore the wronged party to their original state or potential, not to enrich them in any way.
2007-09-03 12:58:32 · answer #2 · answered by claudiacake 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm glad he got a lawyer. I hate to see this happen to Elliott. I think Jeremy Mayfield was totally correct about how the company was going and how Evernham was losing interest. I heard that some of the Sponsors were upset with the change. I think GEM will regret getting rid of Elliott. He is much better than AJ(no offense to AJ. He is just not as experienced. That will bite them in the butt in the long run.) I pray that Elliott can go to a better team. He is a good driver. He just hasn't had the right equipment and crew chief.
2016-05-20 07:25:01 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it depends on the extent of the loss on B's part. B had better have some solid evidence that the product didn't live up to it's standards and be able to show, undeniably, that there was verifiable loss. if shown, that verifiable loss is what B will seek, as well as refund, if applicable.
2007-09-03 12:59:00 · answer #4 · answered by 27ysq 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋