What Remedies Hilda Has Against Serious Suckers Ltd ( Ssl )

1665 Words7 Pages
In this essay, it is required to discuss what remedies Hilda has against Serious Suckers Ltd(SSL). This scenario is about performance, therefore, breach, loss, causation, remote and remedy of each party will be discussed. In order to discuss, these statutes and cases will be applied to this scenario. (1) The Sale of Goods Act 1979 (2) The Sale of Goods Act 1979 (3) Supply of Goods & Services Act 1982 (1) Bunge Corp v Tradax Export SA [1981] 1 WLR 711-condition (2) Hadley v Baxendale [1854] EWHC J70-remoteness (3) Ms Chaplin v Hicks [1911] 2 KB 786 -expectation loss (4) Anglia Television v Reed [1971] 3WLR 528-reliance loss First of all, the term between Hilda and SSL is breached. In this scenario, the obvious term is not expressed,…show more content…
The fact that vacuum cleaner was not usable is condition, because nothing wrong happened without the problem about vacuum cleaner. Basically condition is fundamental point of contract. In this case, whether or not hoover was usable is fundamental as they have dealing with hoover. Next is about loss between SSL and Hilda. As a result of breach of term, Hilda was unable to obtain a hoover for her business. Consequently, she could not complete her job for Simon. As a result of her failure of duty, she was unable to entitle to obtain a special fee for £2,000 from Simon. Because specific amount of loss can be quantified, it is called expectation loss. ‘Expectation loss will work to put the claimant in the position where he would have been in, had contract been properly performed and it will serve to counter lost expectation which includes loss of profits expected to arise out the contract. Unless the profits can be valued precisely, it is unlikely to succeed. (Lecture slide)’. This is emerged from Ms Chaplin v Hicks [1911] 2 KB 786. The claimant, Ms Chaplin applied for the beauty contest. The top 50 is invited for the interview and the final 20 will gain the chance to be hired by famous agency. Ms Chaplin remained as the top 50 but the letter reached her when it is too late to join the interview. She sued for her loss of chance. As a result, the defendant was required to recover her loss by paying money which is
    Open Document