Midterm Ratios

Question 1

McRae

Answer 1

• Because oil tanker didn’t exist it is a breach of contract
• Contract not void because of common mistake
• Reliance damages

Question 2

Sunshine

Answer 2

Cannot base damages in both expectation and reliance interests; have to choose one

Question 3

Chaplin

Answer 3

Just because you cannot make an award precisely doesn’t mean you cannot make an award at all; possible to recover for loss of chance

Question 4

Groves

Answer 4

• Damages should be compensatory rather than punitive;

- not going to award damages that are a waste of resources in some way (economic inefficiency)

Question 5

Nu-West Homes

Answer 5

Where the cost of rectification is great in comparison to the nature of the defect, the court will not force a slavish following of the precise specifications of the contract

Question 6

Jarvis

Answer 6

You can recover for mental distress cause by a broken promise of enjoyment

Question 7

Whiten

Answer 7

Punitive damages can be awarded if there is an actionable wrong which caused injury to the plaintiff; there must be an ADDITIONAL WRONG aside from the breach of the contract (typically a breach of good faith or a tort)

Question 8

Fidler

Answer 8

Can recover for mental distress if the object of the contract was to secure psychological benefit, brought you mental distress, reasonably foreseeable, and then only if the degree of suffering is sufficient to warrant damages

Question 9

Hadley v Baxendale

Answer 9

• Compensate for natural consequences of breach
• Ordinary rule: contract breach damages only awarded that were reasonably foreseeable losses that could be anticipated by the defendant
• Special knowledge rule: if potential loss communicated to D they are reasonably aware of what breach could cost and responsible for loss

Question 10

Asamera

Answer 10

Must start trying to minimize your losses as soon as the breach occurs, if not consequences that could have been avoided are not compensated for

Question 11

Southcott

Answer 11

If claim is for specific performance for commercial property and it is not of any real special value you must still mitigate your losses

Question 12

Evans

Answer 12

• Duty to mitigate in employment context is clear: looking for employment the next day or take job reoccurred by same employer
• Based on whether a reasonable person would take the opportunity, considering salary, working conditions, and personal working relationship

Question 13

Shatilla

Answer 13

• Parties can agree to pre-determined amount to be paid in case of breach
• BUT amount must be a genuine pre-estimation of damages (overcompensation seen as penal and unenforeceable)

Question 14

Stockloser

Answer 14

• Forfeiture clause is not recoverable unless it can be shown that it is unfair/unreasonable to be unrecoverable
• If no clause contract is still alive til vendor ends i, while open cannot recover

Question 15

John Dodge

Answer 15

Can make a case for specific performance if chattel in question is very unique

Question 16

Warner Bros

Answer 16

Where a contract for personal service contains a negative covenant which enforcing doesn’t force specific performance or having the defendant have no other options to work the court will enforce the negative covenant with an injunction

Question 17

Zipper

Answer 17

In dealing with interlocutory injunctions, 3 part test:

1) Relevant strength of case
2) Irreparable harm if injunction is not granted for the interim of the case
3) Balance of convenience between the gain to the plaintiff and the inconvenience of the defendant due to the injunction (will D suffer markedly greater harm?)

Question 18

Machtinger

Answer 18

• Some terms so obvious they have to be implied
• Custom or usage
• Implied in fact= had they been written down they would have been readily agreed to
• Implied in law= no intention required (ex: duty to perform in good faith) > legal implications of a particular class of contract

Question 19

Thornton

Answer 19

3 Questions:

• Is the term part of the contract? (clause cannot be interpreted after contract is concluded)
• Is the term on that you would reasonably expect from the agreement?
• If not, was enough attention brought to the term?

Question 20

Interfoto

Answer 20

Sufficient attention must be brought to exorbitant terms; not necessary that other party actually reads/pays attention to clause just that business takes reasonable steps to bring it to their attention

Question 21

McCutcheon

Answer 21

• Past dealings are irrelevant
• Have to prove P had actual knowledge of conditions (previous dealings only relevant to prove this)
• Consumer only bound if dealing was sufficiently consistent and sufficiently lengthy

Question 22

Tilden

Answer 22

If it is clear that a person doesn’t know what they are signing their signature is not legally binding; only bound to what would reasonably be expected or attention brought

Question 23

Karroll

Answer 23

D did everything in their power to bring attention, didn’t matter that she didn’t read it

Question 24

Karsales

Answer 24

If breach goes to the very root of the contract (fundamental breach) the party cannot shield itself from liability by using a exclusion of liability clause

Question 25

Hunter Engineering

Answer 25

Could be taken out by unconscionability or fundamental breach

Question 26

Tercon

Answer 26

-Fundamental breach abolished 3 part test to assess enforceability of exclusion clause: 1) Does clause apply to the circumstances in question? (is it part of the contract) 2) Was it unconscionable at the time it was made? (parties were equal) 3) Should the court refuse enforcement based on public policy?

Question 27

Plas Tex

Answer 27

What company did was so unconscionable that it went against public policy so they were liable