- Legal Remedies in contract law (Monetary and Equitable remedies)
- The quantum meruit claims
- Quasi contract
LEGAL REMEDIES IN CONTRACT LAW
This can be subdivided into two categories.
i. Monetary remedies
ii. Equitable remedies
MONETARY REMEDIES
a. Compensatory Damages: this is aimed at compensating the non-breaching party for the loss suffered as a result of the breach. See the case of Hadley v Baxendale (1854) where the courts established the foreseeability test for determining compensatory damages and also the case of Hawkins v. McGee (1929) where the courts gives an example of compensatory damages in cases of breach of warranty.
b. Consequential Damages: this covers indirect losses resulting from the breach. See the case of Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd (1949) where this case illustrated consequential damages in breach of contract for non-delivery.
c. Nominal Damages: this is awarded when a breach occurs, but no actual loss is suffered. See the case of Bettini v Gye (1876) where nominal damages was awarded for breach of contract even if no actual loss is suffered.
d. Liquidated Damages: this is a predetermined damages agreed upon in the contract. See the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd (1915) where this case is establishing the validity of liquidated damages clauses if they represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
EQUITABLE REMEDIES
a. Specific Performance: this is where the court orders the breaching party to fulfill their contractual obligations. See the case of Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. (1991) where specific performance was ordered in a contract by the courts for the sale of land and also the case of Whitlock v Brew (1968) where specific performance was ordered in a contract by the courts for the sale of unique goods.
b. Injunctions: this is where there is a court orders to prevent a party from taking certain actions. See the case of Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. v. Nelson (1937) where an injunction was granted to prevent breach of an exclusive contract with an actor.
THE QUANTUM MERUIT CLAIMS
Quantum meruit is a latin word and it means for "as much as he deserved," is defined as a legal principle allowing a party to recover the reasonable value of services rendered or goods provided under a contract when there is no express agreement on payment. See the case of Davies v. Bennison (1893) where quantum meruit claim was allowed by the courts when a builder completed additional work beyond the scope of the original contract and also the case of Cobbe v Yeoman's Row Management Ltd (2008) where quantum meruit claim was denied by the courts when there was an express agreement for payment.
The conditions for Quantum Meruit Claims includes the following;
1. The claimant must have provided services or goods to the defendant.
2. The defendant must have knowingly accepted the services or goods.
3. There must be no express agreement regarding payment.
QUASI CONTRACT
Quasi contract is also known as "implied-in-law contract," and it is defined as a legal concept used to prevent unjust enrichment by requiring a party to pay for benefits received or services rendered, even in the absence of an actual contract. See the case of Mills v Wyman (1825) where a promise to pay for past services is not enforceable unless made for moral or natural obligation. Also the case of Hylton v. Brown (1788) which is an example of a quasi contract where the court awarded compensation for services rendered and the case of United States v. Algernon Blair, Inc. (1952) which illustrates quasi-contractual recovery for benefits conferred.
The elements of Quasi Contract includes the following;
a. Benefit Conferred: this is where the claimant must have conferred a benefit upon the defendant.
b. Knowledge and Acceptance: this is where the defendant must have knowledge of and accepted the benefit.
c. Unjust Enrichment: It must be unjust for the defendant to retain the benefit without compensating the claimant.
No comments:
Post a Comment