Class Notes (806,820)
Canada (492,456)
Philosophy (1,278)

Fourth Lecture of Contract Law.docx

6 Pages
Unlock Document

Western University
Philosophy 2080
James Hildebrand

Belfor and Belfor will be on contract exam TORT LAW- To restore the plaintiff to the position that they would have been in had the tort not occurred CONTRACT LAW- To put the plaintiff in the same position that they would have been had the contract have occurred as it was supposed to Hadley v. Baxendale - Sued for breach of contract - Wanted money for loss of profits (this case has a novel concept) - You are racing downtown because you have a job interview, cab has a flat tire and the person does not get the job and the 60 000 a year (not a novel concept) - Crank shaft broke, told the carrier they had only have one machine and its needs to be transported to the manufacturer to be fixed - Rule: what the parties reasonably consider as a rising from a breach of contract in the usual course of things (what would be a cost of breach) or what would they reasonably imagine would be the cost of a breach, and if both parties know of any special circumstances then this would be in their minds, the extent of the injury would also be in their mind - Appeal: did not know about any special circumstances and therefore the jury should not consider the loss of profit Jarvis v. Swan’s Tours - Tort law we typically ask about pain and suffering as a result of pain or loss (compensate for feeling) - Contract law we don’t think about the feeling bad related to contracts not being formed. They are economic or monetary transactions, heart ache goes unrewarded - In certain circumstances, you can have money for feeling bad if you don’t get what you contracted for (the promise is not met) - Plaintiff is a lawyer, a solicitor, employed by a local - Jarvis reads an ad: hotel- friendly welcome, alpine bar (several weekends a week), no doubt in for a great time, when in for a house party the owner speaks English, Swiss dinner by candle light, price included - There for 2 weeks, only 13 people staying in entire hotel during first week, no skis that fit, ski was not close, second week he was the only one there, they did not speak English - Was disappointed over the experience, as did not live up to his expectations - He sued to get his money back - Generally, no pain and suffering damages in contract law - Contracting for fun and entertainment - It is entirely appropriate to be compensated for loss of entertainment, therefore, general damages - Only one holiday a year, the holiday was planned in advance, but did not get the enjoyment - This case set the standards: Can sue for loss of enjoyment Newell v. CP Airlines - Plaintiffs are an elderly couple - Man has a heart attack and so they went to Mexico to relax and recover from the heart attack - Very attached to their pets, and want to bring them - They wanted to have their pets on first class - Offered to pay for the entire class - When they got off the plane, dog one was dead and dog two in a coma - They were set beside dry ice which is full of carbon monoxide - Bought 4 extra seats for dog - Defendant knew how important these dogs were, the plaintiff had explained how much the dogs meant - Defendant knew that you are not to put animals anywhere near dry ice - Handlers were well aware of this - Three different departments for luggage - The dry ice was placed in the department first - The people who loaded the animals had no idea there was dry ice there - The airport explained they were sorry - They are employees of airline, airline is a corporation- (to say your left hand doesn’t know what your right hand was doing is not a defence) - There should be a better system so that the employees of the corporation know what each other is doing - Special damages: things easily quantified: medical expenses, oxygen, buying the extra seats on the way home, vet bills - Legislation: warstock convention: are the dogs cargo or baggage - Under the hate protocol: what is the extent of liability - Prove three things: o Recklessness (not just careless, entails a knowledge of risk, advertence to or knowledge of risk) o Knowledge that damage would likely result o Act of the agent or servant was within the scope of their employment (loading dogs was within scope) - Defendant: had knowledge of risk, knew you cannot put dry ice beside animal, knew about damage, danger, and how death could result - Court refers to Jarvis case: what kind of damage can you get? Well defendant knew the dogs were very important- they offered to buy the entire first class for their pets - Knew about the potential and emotional impact - Not just a question of feeling bad- mental stress indicated in all circumstances - Safe passage of pets - Special and general damages: non-pecuniary loss for loss of pets - Consistent with what freed tells us about expectation damages - Got pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages Photoproductions v. Securicor - Fundamental breach: common law concept, popular concept o Ghost, but shadow of former self o Some believe it still exists o Supreme court of Canada says it’s now dead, but it still pops up - Party’s made a contract that Securicor would provide security four times a night at the factory - Not for fire - The exclusion clause: found in many contracts such as lift ticket o Two corporate entities entering in a contract  But one not responsible in anyway if something happens  They must check the employees for potential problems, as long as there is nothing wrong with the hiring process  The only way they would have reliability is if the employee - Employee starts small fire, burns down the factory - Contract prevented defendant from liability - Doctrine of fundamental breach: DID NOT prevent a decision against the plaintiffs o The decision went against the plaintiffs and the doctrine could not help - Plaintiff loses - Court of appeal says: the exclusion clause was not specific enough to the breach - You hire these people to look after factory so that nobody else burns down factory, but then the people protecting the factory burn it down - A breach is fundamental if it goes to the root of the contract, it goes to the root of the contract if the party if deprived of their entire benefit - Notion of fundamental breach: if one of the terms in an exclusion clause - But they entered the contract knowing there wouldn’t be any compensation, so succeeded to allocated their own risk -
More Less

Related notes for Philosophy 2080

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.