3510ENG Continuum Damage And Fracture Mechanics

1.Explain the term ‘remoteness of damage’

Remoteness is a term that refers to the presence of causation which helps in analyzing the kind of damages that is caused to the plaintiffs. It also help in analyzing whether the defendant is actually bound by the loss that is caused to the plaintiff. In the leading case of Hadley v Baxendale[1], the court held that it is the analysis of the concept of ‘foreseeability’ that determines whether the damage so caused is remote or not.  Remoteness implies that the plaintiff is permitted to secure such loss which is foreseen by the defendant and which is caused because of the acts of the defendant. If the loss is not anticipated by a normal prudent man in the similar situation, then the loss is remote and the defendant is not answerable for such losses.[2]

In Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc[3], thus, whether the damage is remote n[or not is contingent upon the forseeability of the damage.

2. Hadley v Baxendale  and Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd [1949] 2 KB 528[4] 

a)Identify the two ‘limbs’ of the Hadley v Baxendale test

In Hadley v Baxendale in order to analyze the contemplation of the parties there are two limbs that are laid down by the courts:

1. That the parties must contemplate the events in the ordinary course of things in order to determine whether they knew of the event or not;
   
   
2. The presence of the special circumstances that are present apart of the ordinary course of things but such special circumstances must be communicated by the plaintiff to the defendant.

b)Damages and success

Damages sought by plaintiff

In Hadley v Baxendale

In the leading case Hadley crank shaft broke and thus he established a contract with Baxendale wherein the shaft was to be delivered to a particular company at a particular date. However, Hadley did not inform Baxendale that if the shaft will not be delivered within sue time, the mill will not work. Baxendale was not able to deliver the shaft on the said date and thus the mill remain non functional resulting in loss of profit.

Hadley claimed special damages (loss of profits).

In Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd (VLL) v Newman Industries Ltd (NIL)

VLL ordered boiler from NIL and NIL is aware that the need of the boiler is urgent. But, the boiler was delayed by 5 months. VLL claimed loss of profits.

Success of the claim

In Hadley v Baxendale 

 The court held that if the plaintiff wants to seek special damages, then, the special circumsttbces must be communicated, since Hadley did not communicate the same, thus, he is not liable to seek loss of profits.

In Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd

The court ordered loss of profits to VLL as NIL is aware that of boiler is not delivered they VLL might suffer damages. Thus, the special circumstances are communicated and thus VLL is eligible for loss of profits.

References

Books/Articles/Journals

Barnett, Katy and Harder, Sirko, Remedies in Australian Private Law, Cambridge University Press, 02-May-2014.

Case Laws

Hadley v Baxendale ([1854] 9 Ex 341).

Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc [2008] UKHL 48.

Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd [1949] 2 KB 528

[1] Hadley v Baxendale ([1854] 9 Ex 341).

[2] Katy Barnett and Sirko Harder, Remedies in Australian Private Law, Cambridge University Press, 02-May-2014.

[3] Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc [2008] UKHL 48.

[4] Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd [1949] 2 KB 528