The claimant must prove the extent of his loss. Problems arise when the law must quantify the claimant’s loss of the chance of making a gain or avoiding a loss due to the breach. Discuss.
The doctrine of loss of chance emanated in the year 1911 in the case of Chaplin V Hicks . However, even after a century confusion surrounding this doctrine still lingers on. Loss of chance damages reinforce the fundamental goal of contract law. They protect the reasonable expectations of the respective parties and the interests of those who have reasonably relied on the promises or behaviours of others . However, these cases involves not only the event between intermediate parties, claimant and defendant, but also the role of third party, thus making it quite complex for the courts to decide. Damages in a breach of contract can be either direct or consequential and the onus of proving a loss lies upon the claimant. Loss of chance damages are consequential and should be pleaded specifically . Loss of chance damage can also be categorised as expectation loss. The law treats the claimant 's loss of chance as actionable damage as a result of breach of contract. The claimant is relieved from being required to prove on the balance or probabilities that it would have made the profit or suffered the loss. It merely needs to show that there was a real or substantial chance that it could have done so. The court will then quantify the loss as best as it can as long as the chance is not merely