Custom Writing
Get the Results and Recognition You Deserve
Calculate Your Price
Word count 275
Price for this order:
Proceed to

Read Koufos v Czarnikow Ltd (The Heron II) [1969] 1 AC 350. In your own words describe how the judges arrive at their understanding of the rule/rules regarding remoteness of damage for breach of contract.

In your own words describe how the judges arrive at their understanding of the rule /rules regarding remoteness of damage for breach of contract .Facts The respondents chartered the appellant shipowner ‘s vessel , the Heron II , for carrying of three thousand tons of sugar by sea with the intention of selling the sugar on arrival at Basrah . The time that the voyage would take could be predicted with reasonablecertainty to be twenty days . The vessel made deviations in breach of contract , which resulted in a delay of nine days . If there had not been this delay , the sugar would have fetched ? 32 10s . per ton instead of the ? 31 2s . 9d .per ton that was realised . The shipowner did not know of the charterers ‘intention , but he knew that there was a market for sugar at Basrah . If the shipowner had thought about the matter , he must have realised that it was not unlikely that the sugar would be sold on arrival at the then market price , and that prices were apt to fluctuate daily . He had no reason to suppose that the fluctuation would be downwards rather than upwards . The charterers sought to recover the difference between the amount that would have been realised on sale at ?32 10s . per ton and the amount realised in fact , as damages for breach of the contract of carriage by delay due to deviation .Ruling re remoteness of cause Until Hadley v . Baxendalen[1843-60] All E .R . Rep . 461 (1854 , 9 Exch .341 , the rule was that the damage resulting must be the proximate damage , that is damage must come from a naturally occurring consequence of the breach of contract . For example , if a delay in shipment caused you to lose a sale , then you could sue for proximate damages . With the increasing complications of life and theupsurge of industrial activities these simple rules failed to give sufficient guidance to juries or indeed judges for the assessment of damages for breach of contract in more complicated cases .In the case of Hadley v . Baxdalen , Messrs . Hadley , owners of a flour mill in Gloucester , having sent a broken millshaft by the well-known carriers Pickfords to their suppliers in Greenwich to provide a pattern for anew shaft and there being a delay in delivery by Pickfords amounting to a breach of contract , claimed damages on the footing that the whole activities of their mill were held up for want of theshaft , it was clear that the rule , though requiring some expansion , must nevertheless receive some limitation . This led to the famous statement of ALDERSON , B , in that case [1843-60] All E .R . Rep . at p . 465n “We think the proper rule in such a case as the present is this : Where two parties have made a contract which one of them has broken the damages which the other party ought to receive in respect of such breach of contract should be such as may fairly and reasonably be considered either arising naturally , i .e , according…

Download for FREE

Tags: , , , , , ,

Copyright 2016