Assignment Topic: Law in Angla Television Ltd.

Assignment Overview on: Law in Angla Television Ltd.

Upon breach of a contract a party can claim damages which are the common form of judicial remedy. The main idea behind the policy of damages is to fulfil the expectations of the claimant if the contract would have been performed appropriately. In the matter of Robinson v  Harman (1848) 1 Ex Rep 850 it was held that it is a common law rule that a party suffering loss because of any breach of contract be placed in the same position if the contract would have been performed properly. In the matter of Anglia Television Ltd. V Reed (1972) the contract was repudiated by the defendant by the terms of the contract he was to act in a play. There were several expenditures incurred by the plaintiff like engagement of director of the play and other artists. It was held by the court that it is difficult to ascertain as to how much would have been made if the contract would have been performed but the defendant is liable to make good the expenditure incurred by the plaintiff. It is not necessary that a damage award can cover all the losses incurred by the claimant. There are two problems that arise in claiming the damages for breach of the contract: (i) to determine as to whether the loss incurred by the claimant was the proximate result of the breach of the contract; (ii) how much damages to be awarded so that the claimant is adequately compensated.

Damages can be awarded only in those cases where the loss suffered by the claimant is the proximate result of the breach of the contract and is not remotely related to such breach. In the matter of Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Ex. 341 the mill of the claimant had stopped working because of a broken crankshaft and the crankshaft could be repaired only in Greenwich. (Brazier,1993)The only information that was provided to the carrier was that the crankshaft needs to be taken to Greenwich for repairs. The claimant had just one crankshaft to operate the mill which was now with the carriers so the mill had to stop functioning for the time being. Due to negligence on the part of the carrier the delivery of the crankshaft to Greenwich got delayed incurring further losses to the claimant. An action was brought by the claimant against the carrier for the losses incurred by it due to stoppage of mill for a longer period of time due to delay in delivery of crankshaft to Greenwich.  It was held by the court of law that the special circumstance that the mill had just one crankshaft and urgent delivery to Greenwich is required as mill would not work till the time crankshaft is not returned back was not communicated to the carrier. The profit not earned by the claimant due to closure of mill for a longer period of time could not be contemplated by both the parties at the time of entering into the contract and hence the carrier is not liable to compensate the claimant for the profits not earned. Two rules that were laid in this judgment with respect to the remoteness of damages are as below:

(i)                         Only those damages can be claimed which are fairly and reasonably considered as the proximate consequence of the breach of contract; and

(ii)                      Only those damages can be claimed which can be fairly and reasonably be contemplated by both the parties at the time of entering into the contract.

In the matter of Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd (1949) 1 All E.R. 997 the claimant were in launderers and dyers and needed a boiler of much more capacity than the one they already had in order to expand their business(Fleming,1998). It was agreed by the defendant that the boiler will be supplied to the claimant by June 5, 1949 but the supply of the boiler was delayed by 5 months and supply was made on November 8, 1946. A suit was brought by the claimant against the defendant for the profits that could not be earned from June 5 to November 8, 1946 due to delay in supply of the boiler and also for the profit that could not be earned because of missing some lucrative government contract that the claimant was expecting. It was held by the court that the defendant had the knowledge that the boiler was urgently required by the claimant and the loss of profits could also be anticipated but the defendant was not aware of the lucrative government contracts to be made to the claimant. The liability of the defendant is to the extent of the losses incurred by the claimant due to delayed supply of the boiler and not for profits not being earned because of losing the government contracts as these could not be contemplated by the defendant.  In the matter of H Parson (Livestock) Ltd. V Utiley Ingham & Co Ltd. (1978) QB 791 a hopper which was meant for string food for the pigs was supplied by the defendant but there was no proper ventilation provided in the hopper. Due to lack of ventilation the food stored became mouldy and consumption of which led to death of 254 pigs.  It was held by the court that it could be contemplated by the defendants that in case hopper is defective there is a serious risk to the health of the pigs and hence the plaintiff can claim the value of the pigs and the medical expenses incurred by the plaintiff.  The claimant has a duty to mitigate the losses and cannot sit and watch for the losses to be accumulated.   Damage is a form of compensation but no specific rules have been devised to quantify damages except in cases of sales of goods. The underlying rule is that the claimant is required to be placed in the same position in which he would have been if the contract would have been performed. It is difficult to assess damages bit it does not at all mean that the court will not award damages. In the matter of Chaplin v Hicks (1911) 2 K. B. 786 there is no fixed rule but damages can be assessed as on the date of breach. It becomes easier to measure the damages if the parties have agreed to it in the contract and in those cases parties can claim for a liquidated damage. If the amount stated in the contract is excessive in order to avoid breach of the contract then it is a penalty and if it is reasonable then it is liquidated damage.

In the cases where the defendant has acted negligently leading to the breach of duty of care it is important to prove whether the damage was the foreseeable consequence of the act of the defendant. Two basic principles are: (i) the damage is caused by the defendant due to negligence and (ii) the damage was foreseeable. In the matter of Kay v Ayrshire Health Board (1987) 2 All E.R. 417 the plaintiff could not be paid damages as it is doctor’s duty to care but it could not be proved that the deafness was caused by breach of this duty by the doctor as deafness could have been caused by the original illness of the plaintiff.  Even if it could be proved that the injuries are due to the negligence on the part of the defendant damages cannot be claimed unless the injuries are the foreseeable consequence of such negligent act. In the matter of Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd. V Morts Docks & Engineering Co Ltd (1961) UKPC 1 oil was discharged by the defendant into the Sydney harbour carelessly and this oil was taken by tide and wind to the wharf of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was advised that it is safe and he continued with the welding work. The cotton wastage which was floating in the oil caught fire due to molten metal of welding and the wharf was damaged. It was held that the defendant were not aware that the oil when spread on water can cause fire and are thus not liable to pay for the damage to the wharf as it was not foreseeable.

Damage is certainly an effective remedy in the cases arising out of breach of contract and breach of duty of care. The underlying principle in both whether the breach of contract or damages due to negligence is to put the suffering party to as much as possible to the same position where it would have been if the contract was performed properly or if there was no breach of duty of care.

Answer 2

1. a.               Identify the legal issue: Tort of Negligence

 Explain the legal issue: As held in the matter of Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co. (1856) negligence occurs when a person (i) has a duty of care towards the claimant; (ii) there is a breach of such duty of care; and (iii) that breach leads to foreseeable damage. If duty of care cannot be established a claim for damages cannot be sustained so it becomes pertinent to determine duty of care which is an obvious fact in certain situations like in the cases of driving, driver has a duty of care towards all other vehicle and people on the road. In the matter of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) it was held that duty of care is duty towards the neighbour and a neighbour in law means those people who can be contemplated to be directly and closely affected by the acts or omissions of the defendant in question. In the matter of Bourhill v Young (1942) the pregnant lady who gave birth to still born baby after she got a nervous shock after she saw pool of blood at an accident site. This accident was caused by Young and she brought an action against the estate of Young. It was held by the court of law that Young had no duty of care towards the claimant as it her injury by the accident could not be anticipated. In the case of Anns v Merton London Borough Council (1977) it was stated that to determine duty of care it is important to prove (i) prima facia duty of care; and (ii) is there anything that can reduce the scope of the duty of care. Upon it is being established that there is duty of care it is important to prove that there was breach of this duty. For example in a case of road accident the victim has to prove not only that the duty of care but also breach of that duty by assuring that the driver was careless in driving. There is breach of duty if a person fails to act like a reasonable man would have acted in the same situation.

Apply the legal issue to the facts of the case:  While on the driver seat Irons owes a duty of care towards all other people who are using that road at that time, Peck being one such person. Irons was drunk and drove very fast and erratically thus breaching his duty of care towards Peck and all other on the road. Injury to Peck was foreseeable as it is an obvious fact that when a drunken person is driving, his senses are not fully active and it can be disastrous for other people and vehicle using the road.(Heuston,1996)       

Advise: Peck can claim damages for both the physical and economic losses from Irons.

1. b.               Identify the legal issue: Defence of contributory negligence

Explain the legal issue: When a plaintiff harms himself by acting negligently then his act can be taken as a defence against him in any action brought by him.  When a person is suffering any loss due to his fault and the fault of the others then the damage calmed by him can be reduced to the share of his responsibly in the whole act (Section 1 of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945). While assessing just and equitable award the court considers the extent of fault on the part of the parties.  In the matter of Froom v Butcher (1976) the passenger failed to wear the seat belt and it led in reduction to the damages that were to be granted to him. The claimant becomes contributory negligent only when he fails to act like a reasonable and prudent person for example taking lift from a person who is drunk heavily is a case of contributory negligence as held in the case of Owens v Brimmell (1977)

            Apply the legal issue to the facts of the case: Brody took lift from Irons even after knowing that Irons was heavily drunk. Brody was drunk too. Brody also failed to wear the seat belt and also encouraged Irons to drive fast and erratically thus leading to the accident.

            Advise: Irons can take the defence of contributory negligence on the part of Broody for being drunk, not wearing the seat belt and encouraging him to drive fast.

 Answer 3

1. a.               Identify the legal issue: Trespass and Nuisance

 Explain the legal issue: when a person puts objects or material on the land of the claimant without any lawful justification is deemed as trespass to the land of the person. When bricks are thrown on the land of someone it is trespass. In cases of trespass the claimant need no to prove any damage it is actionable per se. in such cases there is another action that can be brought against the defendant that is for the rights connected with the land. There can be objections raised if there is disturbance to the domestic, commercial or recreational use of land due to any nuisance arising from the neighbourhood. As held in the matter of Bone v Seale (1975) smell emanating from a pig farm was considered as an interference with the use and enjoyment of property. Interference to quite enjoyment can be done in these ways: (i) act which is harmful and create annoyance for example heap of rubbish; (ii) harm which is an outcome of the above mentioned condition like smell; and (iii) liability arising out of the above two conditions(Lunney etal,2003).

Apply the legal issue to the facts of the case: Bogart Limited is throwing rubble on the property of Schell Properties which is a trespass on the land. The noise and dust pollution created by the private construction company is not letting the tenants to enjoy their property and is creating nuisance. An injury has been incurred by the wife of March due to falling of a picture from the wall which happened because of the vibrations from the vehicles working on the land of Bogart Limited.

            Advise: Schell Properties can bring an action of trespass and tenant can bring an action for the quiet and peaceful enjoyment of property. Mrs March can bring an action for physical harm due to the cats of the Bogart Limited.

• b.               If Bogart Limited would have been a subsidiary of Schell Properties then situation would have been different only for Schell Properties and not for the tenants and Mrs March as they still have a right to peacefully enjoy their property. Schell Properties could not bring an action for trespass as for throwing the rubble as it has been permitted by it to the Bogart Limited.  Tenants are not able to enjoy their property because of the dust pollution and noise created by Bogart Limited and can bring an action against it even if it is a subsidiary of Schell Properties. Mrs March has suffered injury due to the falling of a picture from the wall which happened because of the vibrations created by the vehicles of Bogart Limited and hence can bring an action against it even though it is a subsidiary of Schell Properties.

References

Books

1. Brazier, M & Street, H (1993) The Law of Torts Edn 9^th
2. Fleming, J (1998) The Law of Torts Edn 9^th
3. Heuston, R & Buckley, R (1996). Salmond and Heuston on the Law of Torts
4. Lunney, M & Oliphant, K (2003) Tort Law – Texts, Cases Edn. 2nd Oxford University Press

Cases

1. Anglia Television Ltd. V Reed (1971) 3 All E.R. 690
2. Anns v Merton London Borough Council (1978) A.C. 728
3. Bone v Seale (1975) 1 All ER 787
4. Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co. (1856) 11 Ex Ch 781
5. Bourhill v Young (1943) AC 92
6. Chaplin v Hicks (1911) 2 K. B. 786
7. Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) UKHL 100
8. Froom v Butcher (1976)1 QB 286
9. Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Ex. 341
10. H Parson (Livestock) Ltd. V Utiley Ingham & Co Ltd. (1978) QB 791
11. Kay v Ayrshire Health Board (1987) 2 All E.R. 417
12. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd. v Morts Docks & Engineering Co Ltd (1961) UKPC 1
13. Owens v Brimmell (1977)1 QB 859
14. Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Ex Rep 850
15. Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd (1949) 1 All E.R. 997

LI91

Please  Click on the  below links to Chat Now  or fill the Order Form !