Liquidated Damages V. Penalty: Are Causation and Loss Really Required?,

The agreement reached in the process of settlement of the proceedings awarded the penalty setting precedence by the name of ASIC

1) General Rule – Contract damages should put the π in as good of a position as if the contract was fulfilled.

The appellants complain that the tax court fail to apply debt-equity principles. The secondary inquiry cannot be reached unless the first question concerning whether an economic

15–1. Liquidated Damages. Carnack contracts to sell his house and lot to Willard for $100,000. The terms of the contract call for Willard to make a deposit of 10 percent of the purchase price as a down payment. The terms further stipulate that if the buyer breaches the contract, Carnack will retain the deposit as liquidated damages. Willard makes the deposit, but because her expected financing of the $90,000 balance falls through, she breaches the contract. Two weeks later, Carnack sells the house and lot to Balkova for $105,000. Willard demands her $10,000 back, but Carnack refuses, claiming that Willard’s breach and the contract terms entitle him to keep the deposit. Discuss who is correct. (See Damages.)

breach of express and implied contracts based on the theory of promoter liability. The courts

To begin, the Arrowhead School District v. James A. Klyap case teaches us about liquidated damages. Liquidated damages are damages for breach by either party that may be liquidated in the agreement but only at an amount which is reasonable in the light of the anticipated or actual harm caused by the breach, the difficulties of proof of loss, and the inconvenience or nonfeasibility of otherwise obtaining an adequate remedy. James Klyap was hired as a new teacher in the Arrowhead school district where he signed a contract

It is agreed by many, if not all, that the compensatory principle is the ruling principle in breach of contract

Finally, because lawyers assume the financial risk of litigation, the number of speculative or unmeritorious cases may be reduced. In terms of access to justice, Conditional Fee Arrangement have provided for many who could not qualify for legal aid. From 2000-2005 alone, personal injury cases saw a jump in a million consumers seeking redress Conditional Fee Arrangement. This is likely because of a few reasons. For one, the strict means test introduced by the Access to Justice AJA 1999 has led to the middle income group not qualifying for legal aid, but they are not able to afford legal services either. Secondly, the Access to Justice AJA 1999 has taken away certain civil cases from its funding, personal injury as an example. Thirdly, claims management companies CMCs have been actively educating the masses as to seeking redress for personal injury cases especially, thus promoting a culture that citizens fight for their rights, and the Conditional Fee Arrangement is one avenue that they can do it for free. The statistics speak for themselves. Especially in road traffic accidents, sometimes it is not proportional the damage to apply for legal advice but now it is made possible without the burden of bearing those legal costs. Conditional Fee Arrangement has increased accessibility to justice in a way

In this article, Justine Kirby (2000) analyzes the basic law, section 11 of the Contractual Remedies Act 1979, and acknowledged routines for "exchanging" commitments, and after

The matter was presented to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) and AAT has different views on this matter and AAT considered the historical Cases and

John promised to sell some of his stock to Charles with lower price in order to raise funds when they made the agreement. When John sold the stock to the counter-party, John needed cash from liquidation in a short time. In fact, the stock can be sold with a higher price, but what John needed timely fund for repayment of the debt. Besides, it was not necessary for John to sell his stocks to Charles as John had the right to choose the buyer. However, John sold his stocks to Charles because Charles could make the payment within a short time, but not the full value of the stocks, which can help John to repay his debt on time. Therefore, although the selling price of the stock is not adequate to recover the full value of the stock, it is sufficient because the payment from Charles was timely to satisfy John’s demand of fund raising which other buyers may not be able to provide. To John, even if he could sell the stocks with higher price with more gain, but it is useless if he could not find the buyer or get the payment in time. Thus, what made the consideration from Charles sufficient is the timely fund rather than the full value of the stocks, which is urgently required by John to make repayment. As in the case Combe v Combe (1951), John, therefore, cannot deny the low price for the goods which Charles had relied. For an agreement, it is a promise made with

The court awarded Mrs. Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages, but was reduce by the 20 percent she was at fault for, which resulted in a final $160,000 in compensatory damages. In addition she was award punitive damages, which means that this amount was awarded to her as a punishment to the defendant and to serve as a deterrent for the defendant and other in the future. Mrs. Liebeck was originally awarded $2.7 million by the jury, but was reduce $480,000. In the Mrs. Liebeck won a lot of money and put a world wide corporation in the spotlight, and influenced the overwhelming warning label

In England13th century , "courts' has only the power of monetary relief. If the defendant breaks contract which value is 50 pounds, the court may order the defendant to pay in full to the plaintiff. In many cases, such damages have enough, but in other cases, such as rare works of art or the sale of a piece of land is not applicable . Between 13 and 14 century, "the court of chancery" formed, created the actual performance of  equitable remedy,  forcing the party to perform its obligations

The doctrine of consideration is one of the most established doctrines within the common law of contract. This essay will discuss the impact of Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1989] EWCA Civ 5 on the doctrine of consideration. It will shed light on the rules of consideration, ways to avoid consideration, application of the rules in the specific circumstance of performance of an existing duty in cases. Evidently an alteration to the rules and practices would be displayed. Courts today need to make a distinction between everyday social agreements and legally binding contracts, this is where the doctrine of consideration manifests. This case introduces the practical benefit rule needed for consideration however, this case did not alter set legislation formed from the case Stilk v Myric[1809]. As it was held in the Court of Appeal and not seen or upheld by the House of Lords.

A Contract requires several elements in order to be considered enforceable. However for the purpose of this essay we would explore one of these elements in order to effectively understand the controversial cases of Williams v Roffey Brothers and Nicholls (contractors) Ltd (1990) and Stilk v Myrick (1804). Before going any further one should briefly understand the doctrine of Consideration. Despite the vast amount of content written, the doctrine of consideration is still to this day unclear due to the inconsistency of the courts and its application of necessary rules. Consideration refers to that which the law deems as valuable in that the promisor receives from the promise that which was promised. In other words, it is the exchange of something of value between the parties in a contract. One should be mindful that in English law, every promise may not be legally enforceable; it requires the court to distinguish between are enforceable and non-enforceable obligations. This brings us to the controversial cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v the Roffery brothers. Many argue that that the case of Williams was wrongly decided leading to impairments in the rule initially established in Stilk v Myrick. This essay seek to analyse and critique the cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v Roffey Brothers and also highlight whether or not the new rule of Practical benefit lead to serious impairments in later cases.