Money awards in contract law
This book challenges the orthodox understanding of the expectation principle, as famously laid down by Parke B in Robinson v Harman, and proposes a new account of the money awards provided in response to breach of contract.
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Libro electrónico |
| Idioma: | Inglés |
| Publicado: |
Oxford :
Hart Publishing
[2015]
|
| Colección: | EBSCO Academic eBook Collection Complete.
Hart studies in private law. |
| Acceso en línea: | Conectar con la versión electrónica |
| Ver en Universidad de Navarra: | https://innopac.unav.es/record=b44671611*spi |
Tabla de Contenidos:
- Cover; Half-title; Title; Copyright; Foreword; Acknowledgements; Summary Contents; Detailed Contents; Table of Cases; Table of Legislation; Introduction; I. Context and Motivation; II. An Overview of the Argument; III. The Need for the Proposed Distinction; IV. The Place of Theory; A. The Kind of Substitutionary Account Proposed; B. The Distinction Between 'Principle' and 'Policy'; C. The Theoretical Basis for the Proposed Distinction; V. The Structure of the Book; A. Part I; B. Part II; C. Part III; VI. Methodology; A. An Interpretative Approach; B. Why Take this Approach?
- Part I: The Inadequacy of the Orthodox Understanding of Contractual Money Awards1. An Overview of the Orthodox Account; I. Introduction; II. The Conventional Interpretation of the Robinson v Harman Principle; A. The Principle's Indeterminacy; 1. Indeterminacy as to Purpose; 2. Indeterminacy as to Scope; B. The Meaning of 'Loss' in the Orthodox Account; 1. A Focus on the Financial Consequences of Breach; 2. Limited Recognition of Non-Pecuniary Consequences; III. Expanding Recovery for Non-Pecuniary Loss; A. Damages for 'Mental Distress' and 'Physical Inconvenience'
- 1. Two Exceptions to the General Bar on Recovery2. The Decision in Farley v Skinner; 3. More Recent Developments; B. Damages for 'Loss of Amenity'; 1. Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth; 2. Subsequent Judicial Analysis of Ruxley; IV. Conclusion; 2. The Doctrinal Inaccuracy of the Orthodox Account; I. Introduction; II. Two Clear Examples of Non-Compensatory Money Awards; A. Nominal Damages for Breach of Contract; 1. Conventional Nominal Damages; 2. Substantial 'Nominal' Damages; B. Gain-Based Awards for Breach of Contract; 1. Attorney-General v Blake; 2. Subsequent Case Law.
- III. Other Awards Inconsistent with the Law's Orthodox UnderstandingA. Substantial Money Awards in the Three-Party Context; 1. Specific Exceptions to the General Exclusionary Rule; 2. Extending 'the Albazero Exception'; 3. The Significance of Panatown; 4. Appraising the Current Legal Position; B. Awards Based on a Hypothetical Release Bargain; 1. Award In Lieu of a Restorative Injunction; 2. Award for Breach of Exclusivity; 3. Award for Breach of Confidentiality; C. Awards for the Breach of a Contract of Sale that Exceed the Promisee's Factual Loss; 1. Non-delivery; 2. Late Delivery.
- 3. Defective Goods4. Summary of the Sale of Goods Case Law; D. Contractual Awards in Other Contexts that Exceed the Promisee's Factual Loss; 1. Contracts of Carriage; 2. Contracts of Employment; 3. Building Repairs; 4. Breach of Tenant's Obligation to Repair; 5. Breach of Restrictive Covenant in Relation to Goods; E. Awards Exceeding Factual Loss Due to the Accrual of Post-Breach Benefits; 1. Loss Reduced or Eliminated by a Third Party Payment; 2. Loss Reduced or Eliminated by Other Post-Breach Events; IV. Conclusion; 3. Conceptual and Terminological Difficulties with the Orthodox Account.
