References: [1954] 1 QB 292
Coram: Lord Evershed MR, Jenkins LJ
The court considered the possibility of a claim in breach of contract for damages for both capital loss and loss of profit.
Lord Evershed MR said: ‘It seems to me, as a matter of principle, that the full claim of damages in the form in which it is pleaded was not sustainable, in so far as the plaintiff sought to recover both the whole of his original capital loss and also the whole of the profit which he could have made. I think that that is really a self-evident proposition, because a claim for loss of profits could only be founded upon the footing that the capital expenditure had been incurred.’ and
‘In the present case it is plain that to the knowledge of the defendants this machine was required to perform a particular function, and the warranty given shows what the function was that the machine was designed to perform. There is, therefore, no doubt at all that the plaintiff is entitled to rely on [the second limb of the rule in Hadley v Baxendale], and to claim as damages the business loss which must reasonably be supposed to have been, in the contemplation of both parties at the time when they made the contract, the probable result of the breach. In other words, this plaintiff is not confined to the loss which might be called the natural result of having a machine which turned out to be less that the purchase he has paid for it.’
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Watford Electronics Ltd -v- Sanderson CFL Ltd CA (Gazette 03-May-01, Bailii, [2001] EWCA Civ 317, [2001] 1 All ER (Comm) 696, [2001] BLR 143, [2002] FSR 19, (2001) 3 TCLR 14, [2001] Masons CLR 57)
The plaintiff had contracted to purchase software from the respondent. The system failed to perform, and the defendant sought to rely upon its exclusion and limitation of liability clauses.
Held: It is for the party claiming that a contract . . - Cited – Astea (Uk) Ltd -v- Time Group Ltd TCC (Bailii, [2003] EWHC 725 (TCC), [2003] All ER (D) 212)
The question of whether a reasonable time has been exceeded in performance of a contract is ‘a broad consideration, with the benefit of hindsight, and viewed from the time at which one party contends that a reasonable time for performance has been . . - Cited – Anglia Television -v- Oliver Reed CA ([1972] 1 QB 60, [1971] 3 All ER 690)
The television company had agreed with the actor defendant for him to appear in a production. He breached the contract. The company sought both loss of profits and for the expense incurred. The issue before the Court of Appeal was whether such . . - Cited – Anglo Group Plc, Winther Brown & Co Ltd -v- Winter Brown & Co Ltd, BML (Office Computers) Ltd, Anglo Group Plc, BML (Office Computers) Ltd TCC (Bailii, [2000] EWHC Technology 127)
cs Contract – Contract for provision of computer services – purchaser contract with finance company – duty of co-operation to be implied in computer contracts – practice – responsibilities of expert witnesses . . - Cited – East -v- Maurer CA ([1991] 1 WLR 461, Bailii, [1990] EWCA Civ 6, [1991] 2 All ER 733)
The plaintiffs had bought a hair dressing salon from the defendant, who continued to trade from another he owned, despite telling the plaintiffs that he intended not to. The plaintiffs lost business to he defendant. They invested to try to make a . . - Cited – Parker and Another -v- SJ Berwin & Co and Another QBD (Bailii, [2008] EWHC 3017 (QB))
The claimants sought damages from their former solicitors. They set out to purchase a football club, expending substantial sums for the purpose, relying on the defendants’ promised provision of service in finding and arranging the funding. They said . . - Cited – Omak Maritime Ltd -v- Mamola Challenger Shipping Co Ltd ComC ([2010] WLR (D) 230, [2010] EWHC 2026 (Comm), Bailii, WLRD)
The court was asked as to the basis in law of the principle allowing a contracting party to claim, as damages for breach, expenditure which has been wasted as a result of a breach. The charterer had been in breach of the contract but the owner had . . - Cited – Bowlay Logging Limited -v- Domtar Limited ([1978] 4 WWR 105)
(Canada) The parties contracted for the claimant to cut timber and the defendant to haul it. The plaintiff said that the defendant breached the contract by supplying insufficient trucks to haul the timber away, and claimed as damages his wasted . .