Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 13 views

    An Equivalent Principle in English Law

    Uploaded by

    michaelalterfabrik
    This document discusses legal principles related to damages for breach of contract under English law. Specifically, it discusses the 'fair wind' principle recognized in English law as equivalent to the facilitation principle in Australian law. The document provides examples from case law to illustrate how English courts have applied this principle around wasted expenditures as damages.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    An Equivalent Principle in English Law

    Uploaded by

    michaelalterfabrik
    13 views1 page
    This document discusses legal principles related to damages for breach of contract under English law. Specifically, it discusses the 'fair wind' principle recognized in English law as equivalent to the facilitation principle in Australian law. The document provides examples from case law to illustrate how English courts have applied this principle around wasted expenditures as damages.

    Original Title

    17-59

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document discusses legal principles related to damages for breach of contract under English law. Specifically, it discusses the 'fair wind' principle recognized in English law as equivalent to the facilitation principle in Australian law. The document provides examples from case law to illustrate how English courts have applied this principle around wasted expenditures as damages.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    13 views1 page

    An Equivalent Principle in English Law

    Uploaded by

    michaelalterfabrik
    This document discusses legal principles related to damages for breach of contract under English law. Specifically, it discusses the 'fair wind' principle recognized in English law as equivalent to the facilitation principle in Australian law. The document provides examples from case law to illustrate how English courts have applied this principle around wasted expenditures as damages.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    Edelman J

    Steward J
    Gleeson J
    Beech-Jones J

    55.

    the "principle encapsulated in Armory v Delamirie207". Their Honours recognised


    that the principle was applied in Amann Aviation due to the uncertainties in Amann
    Aviation's proof of its loss resulting from the repudiation of the contract by the
    Commonwealth. They endorsed Brennan J's reasoning that it was "just" that the
    shift in evidentiary burden meant that the "Commonwealth should bear the
    ultimate onus of proving at least a prospect that Amann's returns under the contract
    would not have been sufficient to recoup that expenditure". The greater the
    likelihood of non-recoupment proved by the Commonwealth, the greater would be
    the reduction in the plaintiff's damages.

    An equivalent principle in English law

    152 An equivalent to the facilitation principle has been recognised in English


    law, where the principle is described as a "fair wind" for plaintiffs.208 For instance,
    in what was later described as a "masterly judgment",209 in Omak Maritime Ltd v
    Mamola Challenger Shipping Co210 Teare J explained: damages based upon
    wasted expenditure were an illustration of "the fundamental principle in Robinson
    v Harman" so that there was only one principle "governing the law of damages for
    breach of contract";211 the language of "election" is not appropriate in that it is not
    a choice between inconsistent remedies;212 and "the practical impossibility of

    207 (1722) 1 Strange 505 at 505 [93 ER 664 at 664].

    208 Browning v Brachers [2005] EWCA Civ 753 at [210]. See also Hickman v Blake
    Lapthorn [2006] PNLR 371 at 391 [62], 392 [73]; The Law Debenture Trust
    Corporation Plc v Elektrim SA [2009] EWHC 1801 (Ch) at [165]; Double G
    Communications Ltd v News Group International Ltd [2011] EWHC 961 (QB) at
    [5]; Porton Capital Technology Funds v 3M UK Holdings Ltd [2011] EWHC 2895
    (Comm) at [239]; University of Wales v London College of Business Ltd [2016]
    EWHC 888 (QB) at [9]; Marathon Asset Management LLP v Seddon [2017] ICR
    791 at 834 [165]; Redbourn Group Ltd v Fairgate Developments Ltd (2018) 177
    ConLR 207 at 222 [59].

    209 Yam Seng Pte Ltd v International Trade Corporation Ltd [2013] 1 Lloyd's Rep 526
    at 552 [186].

    210 [2011] 1 Lloyd's Rep 47.

    211 [2011] 1 Lloyd's Rep 47 at 56-57 [55].

    212 [2011] 1 Lloyd's Rep 47 at 56 [52]-[53].

    You might also like