key cases and remedies in contract law

What was the element of remedies in the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. v New Garage & Motor Co. (1915)?

• Mitigation of loss

• Liquidated damages

• Specific performance

• Rescission – lapse of time

In Hadley v Baxendale (1854), what legal point was established?

• The court established a test for mitigation of loss.

• The court established a test for remoteness of damage.

• The court established a test for specific performance.

• The court established a test for termination by breach.

What was the court's decision regarding the mitigation of loss in Pilkington v Wood (1953)?

• The court ordered the vendor to mitigate the loss.

• The court rejected the argument that the vendor should mitigate the loss.

• The court found the vendor liable for not mitigating the loss.

• The court established a new test for mitigation of loss.

What was the outcome in the case of Leaf v International Galleries (1950) concerning rescission due to lapse of time?

• The claim for rescission was successful due to the long lapse of time.

• The claim for rescission was rejected because the lapse of time was too short.

• The claim for rescission was rejected because the lapse of time was too long.

• The claim for rescission was not addressed due to the lapse of time.

In The Hansa Nord (1976), what was the basis for termination by breach?

• The entire cargo was unusable.

• Only a breach of warranty was involved.

• Only a breach of a condition allowed repudiation of contract and this was not the case here

• The cargo was partially not in good condition but still usable.

Explain why the case of Globalia v Fulton Showed how the claimant did not in fact mitigate his losses and was denied damages for the early termination of the agreement.

Evaluate responses using AI:

OFF

Answer explanation

The claimant had sold the ship for which the charter contract had been cancelled early. This was not mitigation of loss as the claimant could have sought an alternative customer and would have been better off financially. Qhs, example of what is not mitigation of loss.

Specific performance is illustrated by the case of De Francesco v Barnum (1890) how?

• Specific performance not allowed as disadvantageous to defendant

• Was fair

• She was a young dancer

• Court was mean

Why did the court refuse specific performance in the case of Dyster Randall and sons? (1926)

Evaluate responses using AI:

OFF

Answer explanation

A party to the case had been made bankrupt and could not find the financial means to purchase a house. He had agreed to buy so specific per performance was denied by the court.