|
Home
|
|
The law of damages
- Resources
|
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION |
Concurrent Remedies - Variation of Contract
(1.8 and 1.12) |
Best estimate rule applies to valuation of variations/changes in work done:
see 6.Assessment/liability (final paragraph of liability article and Penvidic
referred to therein); See also Chapter 6/Liability/Wrongly decided
cases/Sabemo |
Chapter 2: CAUSATION |
Chapter 3: APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY |
Owners of the ship
Arietta S Livanos v Owners of the ship Anneliese, The Anneliese
[1970] 2 All ER 29 - Maritime Conventions Act 1911, s1(1) -
50/50 apportionment where not possible to say which party more blameworthy |
Chapter 4: FORESEEABILITY
(LIABILITY FOR CONSEQUENTIAL ACTS/FAILURE TO ACT AND EVENTS) |
Consequential
acts/failures to act
|
Liability
for Consequential Acts: An extract from chapter 4 of "The law of
damages." This extract considers the legal issues and principles to
be applied when a claimant acts or fails to act following a wrongdoer's
breach of duty. Keywords: Foreseeability - breaking the chain of causation
- intervening acts - novus actus interveniens - duty to mitigate loss -
contributory negligence - apportionment of liability
|
Consequential
acts/failure to act - burden of proof (4.4) |
The burden is on the wrongdoer to prove that claimant's actions
or inactions/failures to act (consequent upon the breach) were, in the circumstances
unreasonable: Geest
plc v Lansiquot [2002] UKPC 48 |
Consequential
acts/failure to act - duty to mitigate loss (4, part c.) |
"Foreseeability
and Assessment of Damages." (Jan 2001).
Article discussing the Privy Council case Alcoa Minerals of Jamaica
Inc v Herbert Broderick [2000] UKPC 11; [2000] BLR 729. - Damage to
building - claimant unable to effect repairs due to financial hardship -
rapid inflation and devaluation of currency - duty to mitigate loss -
whether financial hardship foreseeable by wrongdoer/date damages to be
assessed |
Chapter 5: FORESEEABILITY
(TYPE/KIND OF LOSS) |
Chapter 6: ASSESSMENT OF (actual/compensatory) DAMAGES |
Liability - some
harm = some compensation - duty to assess damages/best estimate
rule
(6.1-6.14)
|
Liability and leading cases: burden and
standard of proof; duty of court to assess damages - Chaplin v Hicks/best
estimate rule - best estimate rule applies to apportionment of loss/damage
- duty to adduce evidence of quantum -
best estimate rule applies to concurrent/alternative remedy (illustrated
by Penvidic) namely valuation of variations/changes in work done
- reference to and/or commentaries on the following cases:
- Chaplin v Hicks [1911] 2
KB 786, CA
- Attorney General v Shimizu
Corporation [1996] HKCFI 171
- Palmer v Connecticut Ry & Lighting Co, 311 US 544 (1941)
- Wood v Grand Valley R Co (1915)
22 DLR 614 (Supreme Court of Canada)
-
Penvidic Contracting Co.
Ltd. v. International Nickel Co. of Canada Ltd (1975). 53 DLR (3d) 748
(Supreme Court of Canada)
-
The Commonwealth of Australia
v Amann Aviation Pty. Limited (1992) 174 CLR 64 F.C. 91/043 (High Court
of Australia)
- Ashcroft v Curtin [1971] 1
WLR 1731; [1971] 3 All ER 1208, CA
-
Alger, Brownless & Court Copyservices Limited v Jitesh Thakrar Trading as Thakrar and Co
(a firm) [1999] EWCA Civ 574
Apportionment of damage (6.19-6.26) cases
(applying same best estimate principle): |
Liability - nominal damages
or best estimate rule? (6.9)
|
Liability/best
estimate rule v. Nominal damages/no recovery cases/an inconsistent line of authority
|
Liability - wrongly decided cases - best
estimate rule not applied
|
-
Tate
& Lyle Food and Distribution Ltd v Greater London Council [1982] 1
WLR 149; [1981] 3 All ER 716, QBD
-
Sabemo
(Sa) Pty Ltd V. AIW Engineering Pty Ltd File No. SCGRG 92/36 Judgment
No. 3630 Number of pages - 15 Arbitration (1992) 9 BCL 280; [1992]
SASC 3630 (24 September 1992), Supreme Court of South Australia
|
Quantum - standard of proof
and the certainty issue - amount of entitlement
|
Quantum of damages: the standard of proof/degree
of certainty of assessment required - measure of damages/amount of
claimant's entitlement - evidence and the better evidence rule
|
Quantum - Evidence of amount/quantum
(additional materials)
|
Options where missing
or unreliable (quantum) evidence - use of own (expert) knowledge - inviting further
representations/evidence - enquiry as to damages - deferral of assessment
(prospective/future loss eg third party claims)
|
Quantum - Methods of
Assessment - Total cost/global method (6.15-6.18)
|
The total cost/global method
of assessing damages and variations (Feb 2001). This article
concerns the US case Amelco Electric v. City
of Thousand Oaks (2000), 82 Cal.App.4th 373. - Construction
contract - variations/changes - delay and interruption of progress - concurrent
remedies (repricing of contract due to abandonment/variation alternatively
damages for breach) - total cost/global method of assessment - general principles
of damages and assessment with reference to EW, Aus, Can and US cases
|
Quantum - Apportionment of Damage
(6.19-6.26) |
Best
estimate rule applies: see 6.Assessment/general principles/liability
|
Owners of the ship
Arietta S Livanos v Owners of the ship Anneliese, The Anneliese
[1970] 2 All ER 29: see apportionment of liability (chapter 3) above -
analogous to situation in which it is not possible to say whether either
party caused a greater part of the total/global loss (50/50 approach to
apportionment)
|
Other
Materials |
Researching
the law of damages online - an introduction |
|
Disclaimer
|
|