Contract Law

Foakes v. Beer (missed last class – interviews)
•    Why doesn’t the ruling in this case come under pre-existing duty?
•    Why do we need a separate rationale?
o    We do not need the rule from Foakes v. Beer – equally analysable under pre-existing duty
o    Separate island of jurisprudence all to itself, very similar to pre-existing duty rule
o    Could be under Stilk v. Meryk
•    Is is a subset of a preexisting duty, but we treat it separately for historical reasons.

•    Why doesn’t the hypothetical situation whereby one promises to write off a $100 debt in exhange for $50 fall under the rule that we saw earlier (stilk v. merit)
o    S & M was a legal dispute
o    The answer is that the s & m type scenario was about a compromising legal dispute
o    Whereas, in our hypothetical situation, there is no legal dispute.  One is not claiming that one does not owe the money.  One is simply admitting that one cannot pay it.

Given the similarity between the Foakes v. Beer and Stott v. Merit Investment Corporation, would the way around exhibited in williams v. roffey brothers be gotten around the same was as in Stott v. Merit?
o    Williams v. Roffy brother scenario takes some of the sting out
o    Why is it not equally applicable to the Foakes v. beer scenario?
•    It would be.
•    The English courts have addressed this.  They have said that one cannot use a Williams approach to defang the approach of Foakes.
•    This is because Foakes is a decision of the house of lords, and it would take a decision of that same house to overturn it.
•    Further, the argument goes that if Williams got one out from under Foakes, there would be nothing left to Foakes.
•    Whereas, in Williams, all three judges said they were not overturning Stilk v. Merit.
•    Why won’t a Williams argument apply?  (Consideration can be found in practical benefit…)
o    The answer is because the courts have said that it won’t.
•    Williams v. Roffy Brothers says that a prac. benefit can be consideration
o    applies only if the parties already have a contract
o    though limited in this way, nevertheless, is a precedent of great interest.
o    The natural question is, “what can Canada do?  Will they follow?”
•    If Gilbert Steel were decided today, would it go another way?
•    Under Quicklaw, search “Roffey” and see what the cndn courts do when they cite Williams v. Roffey Brothers.
•    ***Look and see whether it is being followed in Canada.  This may be important for midterm.
•    Will it stand as a great precedent of our time, or will it be forgotten?
•    P. 309, para 1. – “The case not being one of a composition with a common debtor, agreed to, inter se, by several creditors. “
o    If the first creditor who gets judgment against a credit gets 100%, then the fifth creditor (for instance) may get nothing as there is nothing left.
o    Sometimes, creditors will agree amongst themselves that none of them will actually execute a judgment against the debtor.  They will take the entire assets of the debtor and divide them up.
o    Earl of Selborne says that this arrangment is binding, but cites it in a way that it would seem to be an exception to the Foakes v. Beer way, but does not mean it in this way.  In fact means that there is consideration in this arrangment.
•    This agreement between creditors is called a composition.
o    Note on page 310 para 3 – there is a point that the “chequeness” is not consideration unless it is a bargained-for chequeness.
•    Nothing is consideration unless it is treated as consideration – unless it is bargained for.  Read this over to clarify.
o    P 312 – contracts with a 3rd party.

Criteria to select promises worthy of legal enforcement
•    Promises given in return for something which the law is prepared to regard as consideration.
o    This is narrower than what ordinary people might view as consideration.
•    Promises under seal (will look at later).

•    Does our legal tradition enforce promises merely because the promisee has relied on them?
o    This is against theory, but may exist practically.
•    We now come to a series of cases where this appears to be the scenario.
o    What is going on will look like promise enforcement, but the question is whether it is really promise enforcement, or protecting resonable reliance.
•    Is it harm prevention as opposed to promise enforcement?
•    With promise enforcement, all the attention is on the promisor.
•    With harm prevention, all the attention is on the promisee.
o    The case that discovered the possibility that there might be something that strongly resembled considerationless promise enforcement was Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House ltd.
•    Lord Denning, prior to becoming a Lord.  He is a Justice here – trial judge.
•    One of the few trial cases in our text.
•    Friendly parties – just want an answer, which they will be willing to accept.
•    In this case, one of the two parties (plaintiff) have become insolvent, and is in the hands of a receiver.  The receiver has a fiduciary duty to try to take in as much money as legally possible.
•    99-year leases are quite common in England.
•    The landlord sues for 2 things (which may be the same thing, 2 ways)
o    Full rent prospectively
o    Full rent retrospectively.
•    First thing we look for is consideration (to enforce the landlord’s promise to let them pay ½ rent).
o    The promissee did rely on this promise
o    Consideration:  The tenant did pay the ½ rent, but that is not consideration – that falls under pre-existing duty.
o    There is no seal on the changed contract.  No change vis-à-vis the change.  No consideration vis-à-vis the change.
o    Denning J. does something revolutionary while saying that he is not doing anything revolutionary.
•    Claims to be following jurisprudence.
•    He makes up something and attributes it to the widom of the past.
•    Estoppel – this is the leading case of estoppel.
•    What Denning J. is faced with is a situation where the promisor made a promise to the promisee, the promisee relied reasonably on the promise, and now the promisor wants to break the promise.
•    The landlord gave the tenant a representation of the future – we call this a promise
•    This case is about whether to enforce a promise.
•    Because it is a promise.  Does not fall under trad. Jurisprudence of estoppel.
•    Allows us to make some enforcement.
•    (para 1 on page 316) – “With regard to estoppel, the representation made in relation to reducing the rent was not a representation of an existing fact.  It was a representation, in effect, as to the future, namely, that payment of the rest would not be enforced at a full rate but only at a reduced rate.  Such a representation would not give rise to an estoppel, because, as was said… a representation as to the future must be embodied as a contract or be nothing.”
•    (Para 2) “There have been a series of decisions over the last fifty years which, although they are said to be cases of estoppel, are not really such.  They are cases in which a promise was made which was intended to create legal relations and which to the knowledge of the person making the promise, was going to be acted on by the person to whom it was made, and which was in fact so acted on.  In such cases the courts have said that the promise must be honoured…  As I have said they are not cases of estoppel in the strict sense.  They are really promises – promises inteded to be binding, intended to be acted on, and in fact acted on.”
•    “In each case the court held the promise to be binding on the party making it, even though under the old common law it might be difficult to find any consideration for it.”
•    Continues – is this promise enforcement, or is it something that looks like promise enforcement, but is not?
•    Is there a meaningful difference between ordering a defendant to keep their promise, and ordering a defendant to act consistently with their promise.
•    Para 3 & 5 address the question (which we would never have to address with consideration)
•    How Binding?
•    The tenant had the audacity to argue that the promise was for the entire 99-year lease.
o    Lord Denning says no.  Will enforce the promise to some extent, but not that extent.
o    Says that the promisor can take back their promise to this promise

Reset.
•    It may be that the promisor can take back their promise
•    Estoppel-based promise-enforcement differs.
•    Promisory-estopple, or equitable-estoppel.
o    A different category of estoppel.

Next class:  Down to D & C Builders v. Rees

On TWEN is last year’s midterm.  Address questions 2 & 3 by way of sample.

Assignment #1
There are some agreements that seem to have the outwards signals of a contract – offer, etc.  There are some agreements to look like contracts, but courts do not enforce.
For example, “I’ll make supper tonight if you make supper tomorrow night.”  There we have offer, acceptance and consideration.  However, if the person did not make supper the second night, and was sued, the court would likely find in favour of the defendant – not because either offer, acceptance of consideration were missing, but the court would be likely to say that the arrangement was not meant to be binding legally.  This is based mostly on triviality.
This means that the parties did not intend for it to be a legal compact.  Normally, this is no defence.  It is an absurd proposition in a business or commercial context.
Where it typically comes up is in “family arrangements”.
This is where our assignment #1 comes up.
Should these agreements be legally binding?  One had to research, not the law, but one’s mind as to what human factors are relevant in such a situation.
Ultimately, it is about the Offerer.  Did the Offerer intend for the arrangement to be legally binding?
Editors of case book bring to attention two of leading cases.  Be careful when using antiquated cases as a source for modern law.  May also look at some of the books on reserve.  Ultimately not a research essay.

Letter of comfort
•    A letter from a bank or a parent company, designed to ‘comfort’ another party (like a landlord or financial institution).  They are not promises.
•    If something went wrong, the issuer of the letter would argue that they did not have legal effect.

Government program
•    Might see this argument in a non-family arrangement also in a government program setting.
•    For instance, there might be a student employment program that specified in the ad certain criteria for eligibility.
o    If too many students applied, might be sued, construing the ad as an Offer.
•    The court would have to decide whether a reasonable reader would have understood it to be an offer.  Did the government intend this ad to affect its legal relationship with the reader?

Indefiniteness
•    One of the characteristics of an Offer is that it must be sufficiently detailed that, if accepted, the court must be able to enforce it.
•    This means that the contract must have sufficient detail to be enforced by the courts.
•    By getting into a taxi and giving a destination, to which the only response is to put the car in drive, one forms an enforceable contract.  This is all implicit.
•    Uncertainty does not mean that there weren’t enough words exchanged, but that words + context ≠ enforceable.
•    “I offer to sell you my car.”  “I accept.”  No good.  Price missing.  Impossible to enforce.

•    How does a court enforce a transaction?
o    What if one received, for instance, money for a car, but didn’t provide the car?
o    How does the court, in a subsequent suit, enforce this.
o    Judges for the plaintiff, but then what?
o    The court gives to the victorious plaintiff not the thing being fought over, but the value of it.  Translates the issue into an award of money.
o    This works great for things that have a market value, like a new car, but not for things that don’t – like broken legs.

•    Indefiniteness – Courts cannot enforce a contract against a defendant unless there is enough detail present to translate a broken ‘agreement’ into a monetary value.
•    Court does not demand that it have every single detail – can import reasonable terms.  Take the view that they can’t patch up glaring holes in the contract.
•    Notes on indefiniteness (488…).
o    Sometimes, parties deliberately write contracts that are indefinite on some point.  Consider that the point isn’t a critical one.  Parties usually contemplate only the happy performance of a contract.
o    Lawyers are often the ones who have to remind their clients to include clauses “in case something goes wrong.”
o    These points are hard to agree on.
o    Difficulty lies in the fact that these points could be the sticking point in forming a contract.  This is why these are often left out…
o    Takes a risk in assuming that nothing will go wrong – most ppl do, however, keep their promises.  This is what these parties count on.  Dodgy.

•    Another situation where parties often leave something out of a contract:
o    Suppose two parties want to enter into an agreement.
o    Suppose one wants to build a hydro-electric damn
o    This party might not want to spend the money to build without a guaranteed market – may form an agreement with a market that will run many years in the future.
o    The contract is about the purchase and sale of electricity.
•    How do we know what the price of electricity will be in the future??
o    How does one construct a contract that in binding today, but leaves blank a critical term?  (The price term)
o    Such contracts are fairly common.  Long-term procurement contracts with suppliers.
•    Could include a clause to re-negotiate at set terms in the future
•    Could include a way to change the prices to fair market value at set intervals.
o    Option 1 would likely lead to a non-enforceable contract.  Option 2 would likely be enforceable.
o    Enforceability of a promise is sticky.  Can negotiate in good faith, but not agree.
o    How does one know what agreement parties would have reached?  One cannot.  Therefore, cannot translate a decision into dollars.
o    Courts have taken the obvious route, and have been inhospitable to the idea of working in good faith.
o    Whereas if there is some sort of formula, such as to be applied to annually recalculate the fair price of, for instance, electricity.
o    Labour contracts often work this way: “Consumer price index, plus 1%.”

Foley v. Classique Coaches, Ltd.
•    Basically a land purchase agreement, with a tacked-on supplementary agreement.
•    Says that the bus company must buy all petrol from the gas station of Foley, in return for selling them the gas.
•    Stops buying gas from Foley – Foley sues.  Must prove that there was a contract and that it was broken.
•    Price was left out of the contract.  1.  The vendor shall sell to the company… petrol… at a price to be agreed by the parties in writing and from time to time.
•    Those words are often fatal – an agreement to agree.  Unenforceable.
•    How does the court know what the parties would have agreed had they agreed?  Cannot calculate the loss.
•    Agreements to agree simpliciter are unenforceable.  This is an important distinction.
•    A formula to calculate what they have not agreed upon, for instance, is enforceable.
•    Agreement to agree + Mechanism is enforceable.
•    Here, it is clause 8 – the arbitration clause.
•    The arbitrator is the person that the parties have chosen, so is not imposing anything on the parties.  They are agreed by the parties to be suitable to do this.
•    Sale of Goods Act has a provision for where the court may step in, but this is an exception.  Courts do not want to do this.  This exception is statute-authorized.  Note 4&5 on page 505.
•    In order for this to apply, the contract must be a silent contract.
•    Without the arbitration clause in clause 8, one could say that it involves the sale of petrol, which places it under the jurisdiction of Sale of Goods Act.  In this situation, it does not save it, because it applies only when the parties are silent about price – in this clause, on the contrary, there is an agreement to agree.
•    Repeat:  Sale of Goods Act applies only only only where the parties have been silent on the point of price (and typically only to one-off transactions).
•    Note 1:  “The pressure to enforce will be a function of the extent to which one party has relied on the agreement, the degree to which the parties are committed…”
o    If the contract was defective at the moment of creation, then it is defective, and nothing thereafter will redeem it.
o    So this note is somewhat inaccurate.
o    However, the reality is that if parties have worked successfully under a contract for some time (as in Foley), then it is relevant to the question of whether this was a workable, enforceable contract.  Makes the argument less plausible, but not impossible.
o    Judges tend to view the fact that ppl have worked successfully under a contract somewhat pragmatically.  Theoretically, if a contract was flawed at conception, then it is flawed inherently and irredeemably.

P 496 – importance of arbitrators
•    Arbitrators are often included in standard-form contracts.  Many insurance companies now include them in their contracts as standard.
o    This is often to keep out of the public eye events that would be seen as unfavorable, and to avoid the expense of lengthy court battles.
•    Parties can then later agree to skip arbitration.  Sometimes there are clauses to set up an “arbitration court of appeal” in case one party is unhappy with an arbitration.
•    Sometimes people involved in arbitration might feel somewhat under-valued law.
o    However, arbitrators are just as bound by the law as judges are.  They use the same law.
o    They write a legal decision.  They must give the decision based on the law.
o    Should not be second-class justice.

Next day:  Walford v. Miles; Empress Towers v. Bank of NS;

Privity

•    If C is a stranger to a contract between A & B, then C must fail legal action

•    In a contract between A & B in which C is a beneficiary, the A-B contract contemplates C.  C is still a third party, but not a stranger – is actually named in the agreement.
o    Beneficiary – the recipient of a benefit under the contract.
o    Our system of law treats the third-party beneficiary the same as the third-party stranger.
o    1861 case established this.
o    in earlier cases, C coud sue on the contract
o    once contract theory evolved, C became a victim of the quest for theoretical purity.

•    If A & B form a contract with A working as an agent for C, then C is not a mere third-party beneficiary.  C is a party.  A is not.
•    If A & B have a contract which has not yet been performed (any contract creates private rights – rights are property; choses in action), A has rights against B, and can, if A chooses, “alienate” their rights against B to another party.  Can sell or give incorporeal rights (assign).
o    C gains the rights to what A assigns C.
o    A-C contract.  A had rights under the A-B contract, but sold them to C = assignment.
o    Question:  What rights does C have under the A-B contract?  Suppose B breaks the promise – Can C sue?
•    Equity will allow C to sue B.
•    A is still in the original contract, but so is C.  C could sue B, but might have to sue B using A’s name.
•    Superficially, case would be A v. B,  but would actually be C sueing B.  This is how equity works in this situation.
•    Now there is a statute in every province which simplifies this situation.

Third A-B-C relationship:
•    The trust example
•    A & B have a contract (if unperformed, then each have subsisting rights against the other.  Rights are property.  Choses in action.)
o    A may hold the property (the right against B), not for his or her own benefit, but for the benefit of C.
•    A – trustee (of contractual rights)
•    C – beneficiary of the trust.
•    Referred to as cestqui que trust
o    If A does not act as a vigilant trustee, sueing B for unperformed actions, then C can unequivocally sue B.
o    Here, dealing with property – in the eyes of equity, A’s rights do not belong to A at all.  Belong to C.  Not suing on basis of contract.  Sueing for property.  A has legal title, C has equitable title.

New Zealand Shipping Co. Ltd. v. A.M. Satterthwaite & Co. Ltd.
•    There was a view that courts do not have the authority to change the privity rule, and says that the onus is on the legislature to change it.
•    The tide turned a little in New Zealand Shipping (page 381 onwards)
•    House of Lords, though unwilling to change the rule, softened up on recognizing trust and agency to get around the rule.
o    Did not change the rule – signalled a softening.

London Drugs Ltd. v. Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd.
Page 385
•    Goes much futher than New Zealand Shipping
•    Does in private law something that is rarely seen – grapples with the doctrine itself.
•    Interesting discussion on the issue addressed by Simonds (not the place of the court to change even judge-created laws).
•    SCC addresses the question.  Iocobucci J. says that judges can make incremental changes, but not large changes in well-accepted private-law rules.
•    Agrees that major changes to this would have to come from legislatures – in Canada, this means each provincial legislature, due to the Constitution.
•    Contract between A & B, which agrees that in certain circumstances, B will not sue C.  Shield promise.  Exemption promise.
o    Contrast to contract such as insurance policy where the goal is to confer a benefit on C.
•    Limitation of liability clause.  C’s defence would be based on the contract between A & B.
o    Court reasons that letting C defend itself is less radical than conferring a benefit on C.
•    London Drugs is a bailment case.
o    The bailee is a corporation – a warehouse.
o    Corporations can operate only through human agency – human beings.
o    The employees are negligent in handling the bailor’s chattel.
o    They are tortfeasors
o    The bailor sues the bailee – the human employees of the bailee.
o    Page 385 – the liability clause.
•    The bailor did not pay the additional charge to cover warehouse liability
•    Means, in effect, that the bailor took the risk on themselves.
•    In the suit against the employer (the warehouse) the warehouse was covered against liability by this clause, and was liable for only $40.
o    What of the employees?  Question of whether they were shielded.
o    Note:
•    1)  The reciprocity objection:  would allow a person to sue on a contract when that person could not be sued on the contract.
•    Lack of reciprocity
•    This is a trad. objection allowing C to sue as a third party.
•    2)  A & B contract.  One of the rights is to change their contract (though this is sometimes tricky -  need consideration).  As soon as one says that C acquires a right under A-B contract, that seems to inhibit A & B’s right to alter contracts.
•    The law does not allow us to destroy other people’s rights.
o    Iacobucci J. addresses these issues.
•    Says that rather than trying to find a way around the privity problem, will instead change the doctrine of privity.
•    Do not think that he tries to find that the warehouse contracted on the right of its employees.
•    Does not find any rel. in privity between the bailor and the bailee’s employees
•    Allows the employees to have rights even though they are not in privity
•    Says that in an employment situation, when A deals with B, knowing that B has employees, and that the actions can only be carried out by the employees, to give B’s employees certain rights under the A-B contract is not so very radical (should not take the bailor by surprise).
•    Much turns on C being an employee of B.
•    Paragraph 46, page 395.
o    “I am of the view that employees may obtain such a benefit if the following requirements are satisfied…
•    limitation of liability clause must, expressly or impliedly extend its benefit to employees
•    the employees seeking the benefit of the clause must have been acting in the course of their employment and been performing the very services provided for in the contract between their employer and the plaintiff (customer) when the loss occurred.
o    Said that the bailor was promising the bailee that if the bailee’s employees committed a tort, they would be shielded from liability above $40
•    ends up (on page 397) saying that by implication, the promise to the bailee covered not just the bailee, but also the employees (note – not saying that the bailor promised the employees – promised the bailee).
•    Cannot find the promise expressed – finds it implied.
•    Top of 397 – employees were not to benefit?  Says the language of the clause means inevitably that the employees were not covered.
•    The test of intention here, then, is a very shallow test.
•    Believes, on the facts, that when the bailor and bailee did contemplate (though not expressed) that the employees would be shielded from liability.
•    In the context of employment, employees can raise defences to lawsuits – the SCC has made an enormous practical and symbolic inroad into the doctrin of privity.
•    NOT saying that the employees were parties to the contract – saying they were intended beneficiaries.
•    As such, can invoke this defensively as a shield.  Still would not allow this to be used offensively.
•    The reason courts do not take the trust or agency argument and make them cure-alls is just because they would be cure-alls

Read up to Law Reform Act for next day.
Monday’s class will be review.
Can have another review class on Tuesday – 12:30pm tentatively

This is the second class.  Last week’s class was replaced by visit to N.B. C.A.

Remedies:  Review from last day
•    Principle remedy for a broken contract is a money-remedy – damages
o    Again, do not confuse damages with damage.  Damage is the injury.  Damages is a technical term for the money remedy awarded by courts.
•    The traditional first principle of damages is that the obj. of the award of damages is to put the plaintiff in the pos. he/she would have been in had the contract been properly performed.  This works on the theory that the pl. can then take this quantum of money to go into the marketplace to buy a replacement for performance.
•    Reliance principle:  To put the pl. back to even.  Calculate how much the pl has relied up on the def’s broken promise… to make the “whole” again.
o    Fuller and Purdue – say that damages could be calculated so as to vindicate what they call the pl’s restitutionary principle.  Often, in pursuance of a contract, a pl. will have conferred a benefit on a def., enriching the def. and impovershing the pl.  Restitution to the pl. in this situation is the unjust enrichment principle, or restitutionary principle.
o    These are not a hierarchy of quantum.

•    In Peevyhouse, both the majority and the minority wish to give the Peevyhouses their expectation, but both camps interpret this expectation differently.

Anglia Television Ltd. v. Reed P. 68
•    Denning L. here brushes aside a traditional problem in contract law.
o    The pl. will not get its expectation here – this is a question of damages.
o    Do not know what the profits of the film would have been.
o    In Fuller and Purdue terms, supposed to put the pl. in the pos. they would have been in had the film been produced, but here, doing so is so speculative that it is in fact impossible.  This is so obvious that it goes largely undiscussed.
o    The courts have a slogan:  The fact that awarding damages may be very difficult does not excuse the court from doing so.
o    Here the pl. is asking for reliance.
•    Problem:  Most of the expenditure for which they seek compensation, was made prior to Reed’s promise.
•    If this is the case, then how can it have been made in reliance to Reed’s promise…?
•    Denning:  “If the pl. claims the wasted expenditure, he is not limited to the expenditure incurred after the contract was concluded.  He can claim also the expenditure incurred before the contract, provided that it was such as would reasonably be in the contemplation of the parties as likely to be wasted if the contract was broken.” ¶4.
o    Denning here sounds like he is citing a know proposition of law.  It is not.  He is making it up.

Bowlay Logging Ltd. v. Domtar Ltd.  p. 72
•    The twist in this case is that the pl. was losing money on the contract, and was in fact better off having it broken off.
•    In F&P language (and this is the first Canadian case that uses F&P), the pl. is suing, not for their expectation (as they expected to lose money), but for their reliance – the money thrown away in pursuit of a broken contract.
•    The judge does not deny that they can sue for either, but says that the court will not put a pl. into a better position than they would have occupied had the contract been fully performed. ¶4.
o    There is a limit to their recovery under the reliance interest.
o    They would have lost money under the contract.
o    Can give them their reliance, but will make deductions.
o    The court awards, in this case “nominal damages”
•    Any contract victim is entitled to token damages.
•    Unlike negligence, where one is entitled only to the damages one can prove.
•    Contract suit is more like a trespass suit.  Victorious pl. is always entitled to something.
•    Pl. can sue on expectation or reliance theory.  Reliance here would be more than expectation.
o    Though pl. may have that election, reliance recovery may not put one in a better position than had the contract been performed.

Jarvis v. Swan’s Tours p. 92
•    Here the law confronts an invisible emotional injury.
•    Denning notes that the law has had great difficulty bringing itself to a situation where it will award damages for invisible injuries.
o    In this case, the law made a sort of breakthrough.
•    Swan’s Tours’ brochure set up certain expectations of their resort.
o    Whether the brochure promised him these things is an issue.  We will take this up later in the term.
•    Jarvis, after his sub-par vacation, sues for breach of contract.
•    Denning begins by citing two prior railway cases in which he says courts declined to award for mental distress or for “mere inconvenience, sich as annoyance or loss of temper, or vexation, or for being disappointed in a particular thing which you have set your mind upon.”
•    Denning goes on to say, “I think those limitations are out of date.” ¶4.
o    Here lies the basis for the new law.  Denning.  Making it up as he goes along.  What a guy.
•    Denning gives Jarvis twice what he paid for the tour.  The trial judge had given him half his cost.
o    There is no basis for this award of damages.

•    Are employment contracts covered under state-of-mind?
•    Pages 94-97 show the consequences of Denning’s ruling in this case.

Damages:  discussion
•    Divided into two categories:  General and Special
•    General
o    The type that the law presumes a pl. would have to have incurred in the course of the contract.
o    Compensate for damage which the law presumes that such a pl. under such a breach, would have incurred.
o    Can included annoyance, frustration, etc.
•    Special damages are of the type for which one can produce a receipt.
o    Things purchased, etc.
•    Aggrevative and punative / exculport
•    Aggrevative compensate the victim for aggrevated damage.  They are compensatory.
•    Where the breach has occurred in circumstances where the victim of the breach has sustained more annoyance, disappointment, etc. than the norm, then the court can award aggrevative damages to recognize that the victim has suffered aggrevated damage…
•    Punitive damages – Contrasted with aggrevative damages.  When these arise, it is in circumstances similar to aggrevative damages.  Point though, is not to compensate the pl., but to punish and make an example of the defendant.
•    In reading the materials, note that the courts do not like to award aggrevative damages, and really do not like to award punitive damages.
•    When courts do award these types of damages, the damages are most often low.
•    There is one ON case where a civil jury awarded against an insurance company a very large sum.
•    Judges, on the other hand, have had an unwritten vow to not let Canadian civil litigation evolve into that which the U.S.’ has become.

For next day, read the notes.  Of course feel free to read the associated cases.  Read Fidler v. Sun Life Assurance, and Hadley  v. Baxendale.