(Hong Kong) The buyer brought an action for damages for breach of a contract for the sale of goods. The measure of damages was the difference between the contract price and the market value of the goods at the relevant date. The evidence called at trial was all directed to the market value of the goods at 31 July 1973. However, it was held that the correct date for the comparison was December 1973, about which there was no specific evidence. The sellers argued that in those circumstances the buyers were entitled to no more than nominal damages.
Held: The Board rejecte dthat argument.
Lord Keith said: ‘It is apparent on any view that the buyers suffered substantial loss, though the material to enable it to be precisely quantified is lacking.
Other possible courses canvassed in the course of the argument were (a) to order a retrial of the case on the matter of damages, (b) to restore the figure of damages fixed by Briggs C.J., and (c) to fix a new figure on the basis that the market price of yarn declined steadily and constantly between September 1973 and January 1975, and that therefore the point which the decline had reached at the end of December 1973 is capable of ascertainment. Their Lordships are not disposed to order a new trial. Amendment of the pleadings would be required and the delay, trouble and expense which would be involved in further proceedings do not appear to their Lordships to be consonant with the due administration of justice. The problem about the figure of damages fixed by Briggs C.J. is that it was plainly arrived at upon a wrong basis, and that is now common ground between the parties. In the result, their Lordships have come to the conclusion that the ends of justice would best be served if they were to fix a new figure of damages as best they can upon the available evidence, such as it is.’
Judges:
Lord Keith
Citations:
[1977] UKPC 14, [1978] 1 All ER 515, [1978] 2 WLR 62, [1979] AC 91
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Commonwealth
Cited by:
Cited – Bunge Sa v Nidera Bv SC 1-Jul-2015
The court considered the effect of the default clause in a standard form of contract which is widely used in the grain trade. On 10 June 2010 the respondents, Nidera BV, whom I shall call ‘the buyers’, entered into a contract with the appellants, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract
Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.429894
