t are reasonably foreseeable.1 Similarly, the rule regarding damages remoteness in contract law is that a defendants liability is limited to any consequences that flow reasonably from the breach, or are contemplated by the parties.2 Two cases that demonstrate this interconnectedness between the two bodies of law are Overseas Tankship Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd,3 a tort case that established the tort rule regarding remoteness of damages, and Hadley v Baxendale,4 which is the contract counterpart to Overseas.
Hadley v. Baxendale involved millers whose crank shaft had broken, and they called upon the defendants to deliver a crankshaft to repair. The defendants delayed sending the crankshaft to plaintiffs for seven days, when it was only supposed to take two. The plaintiffs milling operation ceased during the period this seven day period. Therefore, the plaintiffs sued for profits lost during the five extra days that the crankshaft was not delivered. The court ruled that the plaintiffs could not recover such loss, as it could not fairly and reasonably be considered to arise naturally from the breach.5 Hadley established the basic rule for how to determine the scope of consequential damages arising from a breach of contract, and this rule is that parties should only be liable for all losses that ought to have been contemplated by the contracting parties, and those that arise naturally, in the ordinary course, from the breach.
Hadleys basic rule regarding damages was modified to the composite test of 途easonably foreseeable as liable to resultin Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd (1949).6 Victoria Laundry regarded a laundry which ordered a boiler from Newman Industries. Newman Industries delivered the boiler five months late. During this period of time, Victoria Laundry had to forego a lucrative contract with the ministry of supply, due to the Victoria Laundrys limited laundry cleaning capacity, which was a result of not having the ...
Cite this document
(“The interrelationship of contract law and tort law in the area of Essay”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.net/miscellaneous/391116-the-interrelationship-of-contract-law-and-tort-law-in-the-area-of-remoteness-of-damage
(The Interrelationship of Contract Law and Tort Law in the Area of Essay)
“The Interrelationship of Contract Law and Tort Law in the Area of Essay”, n.d. https://studentshare.net/miscellaneous/391116-the-interrelationship-of-contract-law-and-tort-law-in-the-area-of-remoteness-of-damage.
Definition of privacy. What constitutes individual’s right to privacy and when invasion occurs. 2. An interest for tort law to protect the privacy of individuals Tort law protection in relation to privacy of individual. Means of achieving individual privacy through tort law.
The essay starts by defining the meaning of key concepts which are tort of negligence as a way of attempting to gain a clear understanding of the whole scenario. The main discussion will be centred on the discussion of the facts surrounding the case and the extent to which duty care can be established in the tort of negligence.
In this case, Mr Jones sustained an injury as a result of an accident at his workplace on 13th of September 2010. He works for Cwmfelin University as a maintenance man. Whilst he was walking down some stairs at the University on the day in question, he lost his footing on a loose step and lost balance which subsequently resulted in the injury.
This doctrine ensures that defendants are only liable for the damages that can fairly be attributed to him. In tort law, the rule regarding damages remoteness is that a defendant may not be liable for any damages that are reasonably foreseeable.1 Similarly, the rule regarding damages remoteness in contract law is that a defendant's liability is limited to any consequences that flow reasonably from the breach, or are contemplated by the parties.2 Two cases that demonstrate this interconnectedness between the two bodies of law are Overseas Tankship Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd,3 a tort case that established the tort rule regarding remoteness of damages, and Hadley v Baxendale,4 which
It had been the practice to consider the law of contract as a means of promoting voluntary choice. As a consequence, it was unacceptable to contend that a contract could be imposed. It was also, believed that no contractual obligation could be non – consensual or involuntary.2 Thus, a clear limit was believed to persist between the law of tort and the law of contract.
The researcher of the essay states that under the tort law, if anyone suffers a legal, economical or physical harm, she or he may be entitled to file a suit which when considered to be valid. Issues of nuisance, the issues arising in form of liability in the tort of negligence and causation are mentioned in the essay.
The argument behind this case is that the occupier conducting the construction operations is aware of the danger and therefore is under obligation to offer protection.
One such case which was controversial was