12. Additional Remedies

2019 ◽  
pp. 191-202
Author(s):  
James Devenney
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Breach Of Contract ◽  
Unjust Enrichment ◽  
Specific Performance ◽  
Questions And Answers

The Concentrate Questions and Answers series offers the best preparation for tackling exam questions. Each book includes typical questions, answer plans and suggested answers, author commentary and other features. The standard common law remedy of damages will not always prove adequate for the victim of a breach of contract. Equity therefore developed a number of additional remedies, discretionary in nature, aimed at ensuring that a claimant was not unreasonably confined to an award of damages; in particular, specific performance and injunctions. The possibility of awarding restitutionary damages, in part to offset any unjust enrichment secured by a contract-breaker, is also considered.

11. Remedies Part III: Non-compensatory Remedies

2021 ◽  
pp. 340-376
Author(s):  
André Naidoo
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Breach Of Contract ◽  
Unjust Enrichment ◽  
Specific Performance ◽  
The Common ◽  
Compensatory Damages

This chapter identifies some alternative, exceptional remedies that could be available to an innocent party following a breach of contract. Generally, they can only be used when an award of compensatory damages would for some reason not be adequate or is unavailable. The chapter starts with specific performance and injunctions. Both remedies were developed in equity rather than the common law. This means that their application is largely discretionary and so the chapter looks at the factors that could be relevant to the exercise of that discretion. It then turns briefly to the remedy of restitution for unjust enrichment. While this is a different area of law, it can provide a remedy where there was thought to have been a contract but it turns out there was not one. In certain circumstances, it could also provide a remedy following a breach. A basic grasp of this area will also help to understand the very exceptional ‘restitution for a wrong’ remedy. Finally, the chapter considers the remedy of negotiating damages as well as agreed damages clauses.

11. Damages

2019 ◽  
pp. 174-190
Author(s):  
James Devenney
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Great Emphasis ◽  
Breach Of Contract ◽  
Specific Performance ◽  
Questions And Answers ◽  
The Common

The Concentrate Questions and Answers series offers the best preparation for tackling exam questions. Each book includes typical questions, answer plans and suggested answers, author commentary and other features. The common law places great emphasis on damages as the primary remedy for breach of contract, reinforced by the fact that although a victim of a breach may seek specific performance or an injunction, such orders are equitable in nature and therefore discretionary. In claiming damages, the victim of a breach will need to establish that: the claimed method for assessing damages is appropriate (measure); the damages are not too remote (remoteness); if relevant, compensation for inconvenience and/or disappointment caused by the breach is recoverable (non-pecuniary losses); the losses could not have been reasonably mitigated (mitigation); and the recoverable losses have been properly quantified (quantification). Separately, the validity of any agreed damages clause will need to be determined.

Part VIII Remedies For Default, 27 Debt and Other Agreed Sums

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrews Neil
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Practical Importance ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Principle ◽  
Breach Of Contract ◽  
Self Help ◽  
Liquidated Damages ◽  
Specific Performance ◽  
The Common ◽  
Judicial Remedies

This Part mostly concerns judicial remedies for breach of contract (the self-help remedy of forfeiture of a deposit is noted at [27.109]). The chapter sequence reflects both the division between Common Law (chapters 27 and 28) and Equity (chapter 29) but, more importantly, the practical importance of the judicial remedies, debt mattering more than damages, and in turn damages more than specific performance or injunctions. And so chapter 27 concerns ‘Debt’ (but agreed damages, ie liquidated damages clauses, are treated in the same chapter because the sum payable is, by definition, fixed or calculable in advance; but technically, agreed damages are damages and not a cause of action sounding in debt). Chapter 28 concerns damages, that is, compensation. Damages is a branch of the law which continues to generate a mass of intricate case law. Finally, chapter 29 concerns the equitable remedies of specific performance, injunctions, account of profits, and declarations. It is a fundamental principle that specific performance can be granted only if the Common Law remedies (debt and damages) are inadequate on the relevant facts. Chapter 27: The predominant claim for contractual default is the action for debt, to compel payment. Statistically this is the front-runner amongst remedies for breach. The availability of interest is also noted in this chapter.

AN ASSIMILATED APPROACH TO DISCHARGE FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT BY DELAY

2017 ◽  
Vol 76 (01) ◽  
pp. 63-86
Author(s):  
J.W. Carter ◽  
Wayne Courtney ◽  
Gregory Tolhurst
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Breach Of Contract ◽  
Specific Performance ◽  
The Impact

The conflict between common law and equity on the question of when time should be regarded as being “of the essence” for the performance of a contract has often been debated, as has the impact of its resolution by the Judicature reforms in favour of equity's more relaxed approach. Even so, it is tolerably clear that the two approaches have been substantially assimilated within general principles of discharge for breach. If, as a matter of construction, a time stipulation is a condition, then time is of the essence. Alternatively, time may have become of the essence by an effective notice to perform served by a promisee. If the contract has been validly discharged on either basis, specific performance will not be ordered in favour of the promisor.1

18. Specific Remedies

2020 ◽  
pp. 575-588
Author(s):  
Jack Beatson ◽  
Andrew Burrows ◽  
John Cartwright
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Breach Of Contract ◽  
Specific Performance ◽  
Court Of Chancery

This Chapter considers specific remedies for breach of contract. Under certain circumstances, a contractual promise may be enforced directly. This may be by an action for the agreed sum, by an order for specific performance of the obligation, or by an injunction to restrain the breach of a negative stipulation in a contract or to require the defendant to take positive steps to undo a breach of contract. These remedies have different historical roots, the claim for an agreed sum being, like damages, a common law remedy whereas specific performance and injunctions are equitable remedies that were once exclusively administered by the Court of Chancery.

scholarly journals The Case for Specific Performance as the Primary Remedy for Breach of Contract in New Zealand

2004 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 657
Author(s):  
Fionnghuala Cuncannon
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Historical Development ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Breach Of Contract ◽  
Administration Of Justice ◽  
Specific Performance ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Right ◽  
Practical Impact

This article examines the appropriateness of damages as the primary remedy for breach of contract in New Zealand. It argues that the civil law approach to contractual remedies, which gives primacy to performance of the obligation, is superior to New Zealand's common law position, which merely seeks to replace the right to performance with an award of damages. The importance of both the normative and practical impact of the remedial framework is examined in order to demonstrate that specific performance is better able to facilitate commercial endeavours. The three justifications for the primacy of damages in the common law (the historical development, the economic theory of efficient breach, and the concern that specific performance will overburden the administration of justice) are examined but rejected as adequate justification for the common law position. It contends that specific performance should be the primary remedy because it is more consistent with the principles that underlie the law of contract. It also contends that specific performance is more practical because it reduces conflict and promotes efficiency. The recommendation is that any change should be through appropriate legislation.

The Efficient Breach Theory under Jordanian Civil Law

2016 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 336-356
Author(s):  
Yusuf Mohammed Gassim Obeidat
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
Breach Of Contract ◽  
Law System ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
Specific Performance ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Right

This study examined the ‘efficient breach’ theory and its possible application under Jordanian Civil Law. The theory says the promisor has the right to breach a contract and pay damages whenever his profit from breach exceeds his expected profits from performance. As a prerequisite for its application, the theory requires the general remedy for breach to be the payment of damages, rather than forced performance. Thus, the main area for its application is the common law system, since it favours damages as a primary remedy. This study reached the conclusion that the theory cannot work under Jordanian Civil Law, where the primary remedy for breach of contract is specific performance, that forces the promisor to complete the contract. In addition, it contradicts the good faith principle that Jordanian law is based upon, amongst other principles, and goes against the history of Jordanian legal rules.

Claims for Performance

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hein Kötz
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Breach Of Contract ◽  
Specific Performance ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Difference

This chapter examines what the contract law says about claims for performance. It first considers the difference between the civil law in which claims for the performance of the contract are generally admitted, and the common law where ‘specific performance’ is awarded only exceptionally. A closer analysis shows, however, that the gap between the civil law and the common law is not as great as it might appear, and it is on that basis that the chapter discusses in some detail the harmonisation of the European rules on claims for the performance of contracts. The chapter also looks at the idea of an ‘efficient breach of contract’ as it relates to claims for performance.

scholarly journals Specific performance of contracts in comparative law : some preliminary observations

2005 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 785-811 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louis J. Romero
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
Breach Of Contract ◽  
Mise En Œuvre ◽  
Specific Performance

On dit souvent que l'exécution en nature (specific performance) est la sanction normale (primary remedy) de l'inexécution des obligations contractuelles (breach of contract,) dans le système de droit civil, alors que dans le système de common law cette sanction prend la forme de dommages-intérêts. Cet article s'interroge sur l’exactitude de cette assertion. L'auteur constate, d'abord, que même là où l'on fait du droit civil en anglais, comme au Québec et en Louisiane, l'expression specific performance n'a pas le même sens et la même portée qu'en common law. Il souligne, de plus, que l'expression primary remedy peut se définir de plusieurs façons, susceptibles d'engendrer l'équivoque. Il démontre, enfin, que l'expressionbreach of contract couvre tellement de situations de fait différentes qu'il est impossible de dire quelle sanction l'un et l'autre systèmes juridiques préfèrent vraiment. Les expressions specific performance et primary remedy ne peuvent en fait se comprendre sans prendre en considération l'évolution historique de la notion d'exécution en nature dans chaque système de droit. La seconde moitié de l'article procède à cette étude historique ; elle conclut qu'au-delà de différences de forme les deux systèmes, face à la mise en œuvre de politiques semblables, pratiquent des moyens de sanction à toute fin pratique équivalents.

Enforced Performance in Common Law Versus Civil Law Systems: An Empirical Study of a Legal Transformation

2020 ◽  
Vol 68 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-54
Author(s):  
Leon Yehuda Anidjar ◽  
Ori Katz ◽  
Eyal Zamir
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Breach Of Contract ◽  
Lab Experiments ◽  
Specific Performance ◽  
Lively Debate ◽  
The Common ◽  
Injured Party ◽  
Equitable Relief

Abstract Legal systems differ about the availability of specific performance as a remedy for breach of contract. While common law systems deny specific performance in all but exceptional cases, civil law systems generally award enforcement remedies subject to some exceptions. However, there is an ongoing debate about the extent to which the practice of litigants and courts actually reflects the doctrinal divergence. An equally lively debate revolves around the normative question: Should the injured party be entitled to enforced performance or rather content itself with monetary damages? Very few studies have used qualitative methods, vignette surveys, or incentivized lab experiments to empirically study these issues, and none has quantitatively analyzed actual court judgments. Against the backdrop of the comparative law and theoretical debates, this Article describes the findings of a quantitative analysis of judgments concerning remedies for breach of contract in Israel during a sixty-nine-year period (1948–2016). The judicial and scholarly consensus is that the Remedies Law of 1970 revolutionized Israeli law by turning enforced performance from a secondary, equitable relief to the primary remedy for breach of contract. We nevertheless hypothesized that no such revolution has actually occurred. In fact, neither the common wisdom that the resort to enforced performance has significantly increased following the 1970 Law, nor our skeptic hypothesis that no such increase has occurred, were borne out. According to our findings, the resort to enforced performance actually decreased considerably after 1970. We examine several explanations for this result, and show that this unexpected phenomenon is associated with the increasing length of adjudication proceedings. The theoretical and policy implications of these findings are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document