(High Court of Australia) The court considered an action for damages by a party to a contract to enforce an obligation intended to benefit another.
Held: Windeyer J: ‘ I can see no reason why in such cases the damages which A would suffer upon B’s breach of his contract to pay C $500 would be merely nominal: I think that in accordance with the ordinary rules for the assessment of damages for breach of contract they could be substantial. They would not necessarily be $500; they could I think be less or more.’
Barwick C.J.(1), McTiernan(2), Taylor(3), Windeyer(4) and Owen(3) JJ
(1967) 119 CLR 460
Explained – Lloyd’s v Harper 1888
Lush LJ said: ‘ The next question which, no doubt, is a very important and substantial one, is, that Lloyds, having sustained no damage themselves could not recover for the losses sustained by third parties by reason of the default of Robert Henry . .
Cited – Beswick v Beswick HL 29-Jun-1967
The deceased had assigned his coal merchant business to the respondent against a promise to pay andpound;5.00 a week to his widow whilst she lived. The respondent appealed an order requiring him to make the payments, saying that as a consolidating . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 May 2021; Ref: scu.251052