ipl-logo

Remoteness In Contract Law

737 Words3 Pages

Introduction
The term of remoteness refers to legal test of causation that is used to determining the types of loss caused by a breach of contract or duty which may be compensated by a damages award. In another word, remoteness is a set of rules in both tort and contract, which limits the amount of compensatory damages for a wrong.
We can refer to the case of Hadley v. Baxendale where Baron Sir Edward Hall Alderson had declined in allowing Hadley to recover his lost profits in this case, holding that Baxendale could only be held liable for losses that were generally foreseeable, or if Hadley had mentioned his special circumstances in advance.
The application of this test: Contract v. Tort
In Contract law, the test of remoteness can be …show more content…

First, the knowledge of the situation is in the ordinary course of things which mean imputed to the parties whether or not they knew about it. Second, the actual knowledge of special circumstances outside ordinary course of things but was communicated to the defendant or otherwise known by the parties.
We can look into the case of Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc where it is clear that this test is about identifying the scope of an implied assumption of responsibility by the defendant in the contract. It requires an assessment of the common expectation of the defendant 's liability.
On the other hand, in tort and negligence matter, once a breach in the duty of care had been established, a defendant was liable for all the consequent damage no matter how unusual or unpredictable that damage might be. The test for remoteness of damage in tortuous and negligence matter are whether the kind of damage suffered was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant at the time of the breach of duty and the damage must be direct consequences of the breach of …show more content…

The plank struck something as it was falling which caused a spark. The spark was ignited by petrol vapours resulting in the destruction of the ship. The arbitrator held that the causing of the spark could not have been anticipated and therefore no liability arose. The claimant appealed. The court held that there was no requirement that the damage was foreseeable. The defendant was liable for all the direct consequences of their action. However, it was overruled by the decision in the case of The Wagon Mound no 1 . The defendant 's vessel, The Wagon Mound, leaked furnace oil at a Wharf in Sydney Harbour. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf. The court held that Re Polemis should no longer be regarded as good law. A test of remoteness of damage was substituted for the direct consequence test. The test is whether the damage is of a kind that was foreseeable. If a foreseeable type of damage is present, the defendant is liable for the full extent of the damage, no matter whether the extent of damage was

Show More
Related
838 Words | 4 Pages

“The defendant is liable only if the product is defective when it leaves his hands. There must be something wrong with the goods. If they are reasonably safe and the buyer’s mishandling of the goods causes the harm, there is no

Read More
517 Words | 3 Pages

While Mrs. Mabee carried the jugs from the front door toward the back of the house, one of the jugs shattered and spilled on her body and on the dining room floor and furniture, causing severe damage. 2 & 3 -The Product was so defective that the product was unreasonably dangerous and cause the plaintiff’s injury. It was evident the product was defective since as soon the jugs were handed over to Mrs. Mabee by the delivery driver, the jugs shattered causing injury instantly. Jeanny

Read More
1638 Words | 7 Pages

Approximately four months later, the decedent began to complain of severe dizziness and nausea. The decedent died shortly thereafter. Plaintiff alleges negligence and gross negligence claims against Highland Threads, Inc. (hereinafter “Highland Threads”). Plaintiff alleges that Highland Threads supplied the chair to Mr. Waggoner and that Highland Threads should have been aware of issues with the chair it supplied for the security

Read More
456 Words | 2 Pages

Thus, the defendant did not act toward the plaintiff negligently. Any negligence was to the passenger the contents of whose package were destroyed. So the court decided that, the defendant was not

Read More
244 Words | 1 Pages

After a thorough analysis of the facts of the case Resurfice v. Hanke, one can see that the decision made by the Supreme Court of Canada, to allow the appeal was definitely the right decision. The Supreme court made the right decision in establishing that it was Hanke’s contributory negligence that acted as the primary cause for the explosion. But for Ralph Hanke placing the hot water hose in the gas tank, the fumes would not have ignited and the explosion would not have happened. The Supreme court was right in realizing that regardless of the presence of minor design flaws, Resurifce should not be punished for Hanke’s error. Secondly the Zamboni was designed in a way to one could easily distinguish the two tanks.

Read More
1110 Words | 5 Pages

In deciding this case, the court also looked at Section 341 of the Restatement of Torts. This section is titled “Activities Dangerous to Licensees,” and it states that people who own land may be held liable for others physical harm only if the person is unable to foresee or realize the danger associated with the action or if they do not know the risk involved with their activities. It

Read More
273 Words | 2 Pages

Because the arrest and drug conviction were not challenged in the federal removal proceedings, the Court in Moncrieffe v. Holder did not have before it the full set of facts surrounding the state criminal prosecution of Adrian Moncrieffe. However, examination of the facts surrounding the criminal case offers important lessons about how the criminal justice system works in combination with the modern immigration removal machinery to disparately impact communities of color. By all appearances, the traffic stop that led to Moncrieffe’s arrest is a textbook example of racial profiling.3 Over the last few decades, the modern immigration enforcement system has evolved into a criminal immigration removal system, with the U.S. government frequently

Read More
583 Words | 3 Pages

Blankenship Oil Corp., 221 Va. 124 (1980), a truck transporting oil began to leak on the road. The oil itself—though perhaps not environmentally friendly—was not particularly dangerous until the local fire department arrived where it attempted to wash the oil from the pavement with water. The oil and water mixture was them spread over the roadway where municipal vehicles had congregated to direct traffic while the problem was remedied. The plaintiff, then, disregarded the instructions of traffic control personnel drove over the oil/water mixture which caused her car to careen out of control and cause an accident. In that case, although the leak of the oil itself would not have caused the accident but for the fire department’s buffoonery in soaking it with water, and the plaintiff’s contributory negligence in disregarding the traffic control personnel, the Court held that the Oil truck could be the proximate cause of the accident because the harm was “’put into operation by the defendant’s wrongful act or omission.’”

Read More
1720 Words | 7 Pages

(pg.1,law.cornell.edu)

Read More
735 Words | 3 Pages

The Court first explained that the Constitution's Case requires any plaintiff to allege an injury-in-fact that is "concrete and particularized". The Ninth Circuit admitted that Robins had suffered harm, but did not affirm that the harm was concrete. The Court remanded the case. 2. Many cases depend on the final resolution found by the Court in this case.

Read More
1011 Words | 5 Pages

Teresa's case was submitted to the jury on the counts alleging breach of contract, negligence and wantonness, and the tort of outrage.   The jury returned a verdict against Akins and in favor of both plaintiffs.   The jury assessed compensatory damages at $450,000 and punitive damages at $150,000, for a total of $600,000 in Megan's case; in Teresa's case, the jury assessed compensatory damages of $200,000 and punitive damages of $150,000, for a total of $350,000.”

Read More
638 Words | 3 Pages

Justice Cardozo Justice Cardozo wrote the opinion for the case. Cardozo ruled against the plaintiff, saying that the railroad cannot be held accountable for the unfortunate explosion. His argument is that the train conductors could not have possibly known that the package the passenger was carrying would be dangerous. He also argues that one’s actions cannot be negligent if the dangers are not known prior to the choice made. In relation to our fact pattern, the choice to pull the passenger up onto the train and for the other to push him was made, and there was no way to know that, first his belongings would go flying, or even what the contents of his items were.

Read More
171 Words | 1 Pages

Whenever the death of a person results from any act, conduct, occurrence, transaction, or circumstances which, if death had not ensued, would have entitled such person to recover damages in respect thereof, the person or party who, or the corporation which, would have been liable if death had not ensued shall be liable in an action for damages, not withstanding the death of the person injured. The wrongful death statute is not in derogation of the common law, and it does not take away any common law right. The wrongful death statute evidences a legislative intent to place the cost of unsafe activities upon the actors who engage in them, and thereby provide a tortious conduct."

Read More
1099 Words | 5 Pages

It is largely agreed upon that the case of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 111 N.E. 1050, 1053 (N.Y. 1916) was the start of it all. This is the landmark case in which the defendant manufacturer was found liable for negligence even though there was no contractual relationship between the manufacturer and the plaintiff (Bagley, C. E. 2016). Case Brief. The plaintiff, MacPherson, bought a car from a retail dealership, and was injured when his wheel collapsed because it was made of defective wood. Plaintiff sued the Defendant, Buick Motor Co., even though the car was not purchased directly from them.

Read More
1896 Words | 8 Pages

Reynolds v Clarke (1726)2 Ld Raym 1399, Fortescue ruled that the difference would surmount to whether the consequence was immediate or occurred later, for which an action would otherwise not be brought. The rigidness in the distinction between trespass and case proved a problem. The solution lay in allowing the plaintiff to ‘waive’ the trespass and sue instead in case.in Williams v. Holland (1833)2 LJCP (NS) 190, the court of common pleas decided that this would be allowed if the plaintiff’s injury was occasioned by the ‘carelessness and negligence’ of the defendant, regardless of whether or not the act was immediate, so long as the act was unwillful. Thus one could bring an act whether the defendant produced immediate or consequential damage.

Read More

More about Remoteness In Contract Law

Related Topics

Open Document