Remedies

Remedies

Specific
Damages Quantum meruit performance
and injunction

Unliquidated Liquidated
Damages Damages Specific Relief Act, 1963
 Unliquidated Damages : Sec 73
Necessary Conditions of Damages
• Hadley v. Baxendale ( Mill Crankshaft Case)
– Damages arise naturally : General Damages
– In contemplation of parties : Special Damages
• Victoria Laundry Ltd v. Newman Industries Ltd
– Foreseeability : Imputed Knowledge & Actual Knowledge
• Heron II Kofush v. Gzurikov Ltd
• Simpson v. London & North Western Railway Co
• Dominion of India v. All India Reporter
– Special circumstances to be known to the defendant

Pre- Contract Expenditure: Angalia Television v. Reed

Kinds of Damages
• General
• Special
• Nominal
– Charter v. Sullivan
• Exemplary
– Prema v. Mustak Ahmed
 Measure of Damages
• Compensation, not penalty
• Limited Damages
• Damages attributable for loss
• Mitigation of loss: Explanation to Sec 73
• Stipulation of Liquidated Damages or penalty

Determination of damages : Date of breach

Jamal AKAS v. Moola Dawood & Sons
Duty to mitigate the loss
 Liquidated Damages: Sec 74
• English law • Indian Law
– Liquidated Damages • Court’s power and duty to
– Penalty determine the loss

• Intention of parties : to • But amount not to be more

penalise or create fear or a than the amount specified
genuine pre-estimation of in the contract
losses
• Expln: Stipulation of more
• Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. interest from date of
v. New Carriage Co & Motor default= penalty
Co Ltd.

• Sum extravagant and unconscionable compared to the greatest loss

• If payment on breach greater than the contracted amount
• If single lump sum is payable on breach
 Rules…
• Forfeiture of earnest money
– Fatehchand v. Balkishan Das
• Forfeiture of Security Deposit
– Maula Bux v. Union of India
– Union of India v. Rampur Distillery & Chemical Co.
• Whether actual loss necessary?
– Maula Bux v. Union of India
• When loss cannot be calculated?
– Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. SAW Pipes Ltd

Exception: Bail and Bonds

Explanation : Government contracts not always public duty
 Sec 75
• Party rightfully rescinding the contract,
entitled to compensation

– Rightfully rescinding the contract

– Suffered loss due to breach
 Quantum Meruit
• When one party causes breach of contract or
prevents other from performance of his promise
– Pliche v. Colburn
• In the condition of void agreement or contract
– Craven Ellis v. Canons Ltd
• When contract becomes void
• Defective Performance of Contract
– Work done is divisible
– Substantial part is done
• When price or remuneration is not stated in the
contract
 QUASI CONTRACT: Sec 68-72
• Essential elements?
• Intention to create legal relationship?
• Competence?

• Different from implied contract? Constructive

contract?
• Certain relations resembling to those created
by contract?
 Basis

Unjust enrichment Implied-in-fact contract

Mosses v. Macferlan Sinclair v. Brougham

• Principles of natural justice and equity

– Someone is enriched
– At the expense of other
– Unjust to retain the benefit
 Quasi- Contract Contract

• Obligations: Created by law • Obligations: Created by parties

• Consent: not necessary • Consent: Free and inevitable
• Intention: not required • Intention: essential

Similarity
Obligations And Duty Created
Between Persons
Dr. Winfield: a liability not exclusively referable to any other head of law,
imposed on a particular person to pay money to another, on the ground of
unjust benefit.

Dr. Jenks: a situation in which law imposes on one person, on the ground of
natural justice, an obligation similar to that which arises from a true contract,
although no contract, express or implied has in fact been entered into by them.
 Kinds
1. Claim for necessaries supplied to person
incapable of contracting : Sec 68
• The things supplied must be necessaries

• Supply to incapable person or such to such person who

he is legally bound to support

• Reimbursement from the property of the incapable

person

Kedar Nath v. Ayodhya Prasad

2. Reimbursement of money paid due by another
in payment of which he is interested : sec 69
– Person making payment is interested in making
payment
– The person making payment is not bound to make
payment, rather the other is legally bound to do so
– Payment must be made to any other person

Govindram Gordhandas Seksaria v. State of Gondal

Port Trust, Madras v. Bombay Co.
Secy of State for India v. Fernandes
3. Obligation of person enjoying benefits of a
non-gratuitous act : Sec 70
– Services rendered or things delivered lawfully

– No intention to render services gratuitously

– The other party has voluntarily enjoyed the

benefit of services rendered or things delivered

Government and Corporations

Applicability in terms of minor

Indu Mehta v. State

State of W.B. v. B.K. Mondal & Sons
P.C. Wadhwa v. State of Punjab
4. Responsibility of Finder Goods : Sec 71
Duties and Rights of Bailee
To take care, not to make unauthorized use, to
return

Sec 168: may sue for specific reward offered

Sec 169: may sell it (if thing commonly on sale)
– if perishable, or
– When lawful charges of the finder amounts to 2/3
of its value

Binstead v. Buck
5. Liability of person to whom money paid or things
delivered under mistake or coercion: sec 72

• Money paid or things delivered under mistake

• Money paid or things delivered under coercion

Sales Tax Officer, Banaras v. Kanhaiyalal Mukundlal Saraf