Remedies – Contracts Act 1950

REMEDIES method by which an hurt fellowship enforces a right or corrects a way by. It entrust depend on the nature of reveal and the proceeds leave alone be differ amidst parties. The remedies purchasable for fall in of receive be 1) recission An equitable palliate available at the discretion of the judge. It is available where a subdue is voidable as a leave behind of a vitiating itemor such as illusion, undue influence or duress. It pull up stakes non cover restitution. Car & everyday Credit v Cadwell Norris had paid ? 10 cash deposit and left some other elevator car as security and gave a cheque for ? 65 to Cadwell for Jaguar car purchased. The next day, Caldwell went to cash the cheque and nonice it was fraudulent and the car left as deposit turned bulge to be stolen. The beg held that Mr Caldwell had successfully rescinded the contr spell. He had taken all go possible to contend that he no longer wished to be bound by the contract. He should not be prejudiced by the fact that his endeavours failed to locate Norris. 2) RESTITUTION It is not contractual and does not rely on complainant detriments (quasi-contract). One party wittingly has received a benefit to which party is not entitled.An arrangement imposed by judge to rectify an occurrence of foul enrichment. Sinclair v Brougham The society became insolvent, and the question arose how to appoint up assets. By the time of the action, the save live issue was between more or less of the B shareholders and the depositors in the bank, the fix of the A shareholders and trade creditors having been settled by agreement. The coquet held that the banks actions had been ultra vires and void, and that on that point was no possibility for the depositors to be cured _or_ healed low quasi-contract. 3) DAMAGES It is a legal remedy available for appall of contract. indemnity are an award of notes to compensate the exculpated party. The primary purpose of insurance is to institutionalise the injured party in the position they would bring been in had the contract been performed. Types of DamagesThere are basically quaternion broad categories of insurance ? Compensatory (to cover take in losses and costs). ? Consequential (to cover corroboratory and foreseeable losses). ? Punitive (to punish and monish wrongdoing). ? Nominal (to recognize wrongdoing when no monetary loss is shown) An award of indemnity is subject to the application of the rules on causation, farness and a duty to reduce loss. cede Section 74 & 75 CA Heng Hang Khim v Sineo Enterprise Sdn Bhd The motor hotel held that where the defendant failed to deliver vacant obstinacy of a condo unit forwards the 36-month period as stipu noveld in the S&P agreement. The complainant was entitled to a refund of the sum paid which was allowance for loss & damage cause by breach of contract. Selva Kumar a/l Murugiah v Thiagarajah a/l Retnasamy The philander held that on that point is no distinction between liquidated damage and penalties.In view of section 75 which provides that in every case the court essential determine what is the comely compensation. Any bankruptcy to prove the damages will result in refusal to award such damages. remoteness A claimant whitethorn only recover losses which whitethorn reasonably be considered as arising naturally from the breach or those which whitethorn reasonably be hypothetical to be in the contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was do. Hadley v Baxendale payable to neglect of the Defendant, the crankshaft was returned 7 days late to the plaintiff.The plaintiff unable to use the grinder during this time and claimed for loss of profit. The Defendant argued that he was unaware that the wonk would start to be closed during the delay and thitherfore the loss of profit was too remote. The court held that Hadley would wipe forbidden been entitled to recover lost mesh from the five extra days the mil l was inoperable. However, the rule should be that the damages were those reasonably and reasonably considered to have arisen naturally from the breach itself, or such as whitethorn be reasonably supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties at the time the contract was make. Mitigation of sledding The law imposes a duty upon the psyche claiming damages to take all bonnie steps to reduce or mitigate their loss. If the plaintiff is able to avoid loss, damages will not be retrievable for the potential loss that the plaintiff may have suffered. Payzu v Sauders The court held that the claimant was not entitled to damages. He was given the opportunity to purchase at the discounted price merely rejected this. He was under a duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate his loss. The offer was a reasonable one and one which the claimant could easily have complied with. ) SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE It is a discretionary direct granted by the courts tell a person to carry out t heir obligations under contract. It is not broadly used in breach of contract actions unless damages prove to be inadequate. When the court cannot administer the implementation of contract, it will not generally grant specific deed. Ryan v plebeian Tontine Westminster Chamber Association The lessor hold to provide gate occurer who would be incessantly in attendance moreover the doorman likewise works as a chef. In his absence while work as chef, other person will perform his duties.The issue was whether tenant could look for an order of specific performance against the porter that he carries out his obligations. The court was not prepared to order specific performance because it would have had to constantly supervise the porters attendance. Lamare v Dixon The plaintiff induce the defendant to agree to take a lease of cellars by orally bright they would be do dry. The promise had no effect as a misrepresentation as it related to the future. The court refused the plaint iff specific performance since he had made no attempt to perform his promise.Cohen v Roche The court refused the specific performance to a buyer of a set of Hepplewhite chairs construction that they were ordinary articles of commerce and of no specific value or interest. The buyer was spying with a view to resale and for personal use. 5) enjoining It is a discretionary court order. foreign specific performance, this is a court order restraining a party from breaking their contract or from committing a wrongful act and will not be awarded if damages are an adequate remedy. An command may be ? Prohibitory preventing the breach of contract. ? required requiring a person to perform all(prenominal)(prenominal) contractual obligation. ? Interlo omissionory where it freezes the status quo between the parties until the dispute can be hear by court. Neoh Siew Eng & Anor v Too Chee Kwang (mandatory example) The landlord had cut the water supply. An requirement was granted requir ing the landlord to keep all communication pipes in graceful repair so that water supply to the premises would not be disconnected.Broome (Selangor) no-good Plantations v R H Whitley (prohibitory example) An injunction was granted restraining an employee from entering into employment as a manager or assistance of any plantation in the States of Selangor and Negeri Sembilan other than the estate of his employers until the expiry of his contract of service. This is combining weight to the specific performance by the court of that negative bargain which the parties have made. Mareva Injunction It prevents the defendant removing or disposing any assets in the jurisdiction until the court makes decision.Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulk Carriers SA, The Mareva. The shipowner hired out their ship (Mareva) to the defendant with half(a)-monthly in advance. The defendant were only able to meet the startle two installments, Mareva sued for damages and unpaid hire. They al so sought an injunction to stop honcho removing any monies received from the voyage. The issue whether an injunction was bewilderable to prevent the removal before judgment. The court held that an injunction was granted to uphold until the dispute came to trial to prevent the defendants from disposing any assets. ) ANTON PILLER ORDER May be made available in exceptional circumstances. It is acourtorder that provides the right to pursuit premises and seize evidence without previous warning. This prevents destruction of relevantevidence, particularly in cases of alleged trademark, copyright or secure aggressions. Anton Piller v Manufacturing Processes Ltd The plaintiff was under the whim that one of its elements was supplying confidential info to one of their competitors. However, they are concerned that process would give ample time for the gene to destroy evidence.The issue was whether the company could obtain an order enabling them to enter the agents premises to inspect the documents. The court granted the order as there was strong prima facie case of infringement which could cause damage to applicant and piddle evidence that the defendants had incriminating the material in their possession which they could destroy. 7) QUANTUM MERUIT Quantum meruit means as often as he deserved. It is the finale of value of the services extended ground on the amount of work and the dictate of work existing there for akin(predicate) work, when an agreement or contract is not existing between the parties.The contract may be discharge by breach but where the contract is for goods & services, there is a new implied contract imposed by law on the party victorious benefit that they will pay reasonable amount of quantum. Can arise where ? A defendant has prevented a plaintiff from carrying out their contractual duties. ? The parties cannot agree on pay ? The parties agree on defrayal for the part-performance but not the actual amount. Sumpter v Hedges The claima nt concord to build two houses and was agreed that ? 565 would be payable on completion.The claimant through a little more than half job and then ran out of money and was unable to virtuoso(a). Then defendant correct the work himself. The issue was whether the claimant could recover payment for work done. The contract was entire and not divisible. So, the claimant could not recover under it. Furthermore, it is not defendants fault he could not complete the job and so there was no entitlement for quantum meruit. While the defendant obtained the benefit, it did not engraft acceptance of partial performance in this case.