Law Of Victoria Laundry v Newman Industries Ltd †Free Samples

Question: Discuss about the Law Of Victoria Laundry v Newman Industries Ltd. Answer: Issue To determine the damages to be paid to Adam Rule In the case of Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd (1949) 2 KB 528 the issue before the court was to determine the damages to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant. The plaintiff in this case had made a claim for extraordinary losses which was incurred by him due to the breach of contract done on the part of the defendant. In this case the defendant failed to make a delivery of goods on time and the plaintiff as a result lost cleaning contract. The court in this case held that the plaintiff was only entitled to any ordinary losses incurred by him and not for the extra ordinary loss of profit. This is because losses would only be recoverable in situation where the defendant possessed adequate information which would impose the liability of the loss on him. In this case the defendant did not possess such information. In the case of Hadley v Baxendale (1854) EWHC J70 the defendant had been hired by the plaintiff for the purpose of supplying a broken shaft to the engineer immediately so that new shaft could be made. Unless a new shaft was made the plaintiff factory was not able to carry out its operations. In this case there was a failure on the part of the defendant to supply the shaft to the plaintiff on time. The plaintiff sued the defendant for all losses which had been incurred by him. However the claim of the plaintiff has been rejected by the court on the ruling that only those losses which would be reasonably foreseen by the defendant are liable to be compensated. In the case of Nutbrown v Thornton (1804) 10 Ves 159 the issue before the court was to determine the damages which were to be paid to the plaintiff with respect to the breach of contract committed on the part of the defendant. In this case due to the breach of the defendant the plaintiff would suffer heavy losses as the machinery in context of the contract was not readily available elsewhere. Taking into account the circumstances of the situation the court in this case order specific performance according to which the defendant had to supply the rare machinery to the plaintiff with respect to contractual remedies. The court was faced with similar situation in the case of Cohen v Roche [1927] 1 KB 169. However the decision of the court in this case was different. In this case the court denied specific performance to the plaintiff on the notion that the goods in context of the contract were ordinary commercial articles and had no specific interest all values does the question of specific performance in this case does not arise. In addition the intention of the buyer in this case was resell the goods. In the case of Posner v Scott-Lewis [1987] 3 All ER 513 and application has been granted by the court in relation to specific performance with respect to a lesser Convent towards employing a resident portal to perform Particular duties. In this case the court had made a distinction with the case of Ryan v Mutual Tontine where supervision in relation to the execution of an undertaking was required. However in the current situation neither continuous series of actions or personal services were needed. On the other hand only executions of an agreement consisting of provision for the services were required. In the case of Wolverhampton Corp v Emmons [1901] 1 KB 515 the plaintiff had acquired a property for the purpose of an improvement scheme and sold a part of the property to the defendant who had agreed to build new house on the property. The plaintiff acquired house plans however the defendant refused to continue the work. In this case the court awarded specific performance in favour of the plaintiff as the obligation of the defendant has been defined precisely by the plants and damages in this situation would not be adequate as a position of the site was with the defendant and the plaintiff would not be able to complete the work through the employment of a different contractor. Application In the given situation it has been provided that there was an agreement between Adam and Edwin for the purpose of purchasing a 1925 Rolls Royce. Edwin was a dealer of Vintage cars. The contract was entered into by Edwin and Adam for the sale of the car at the price of $500,000. However Edwin found out that there was another person who was looking for the same model and was prepared to pay $700,000 for the car. In this situation he refused to sell the car to Adam. It is clear from the facts of the case that the car is rare and damages would not be able to act as a proper remedy for the breach of contract done by Edwin as Adam would not be able to procure the car from elsewhere. Taking into account the circumstances of the contract the court would award specific performance in favour of Adam which would force Edwin to sell the car to him at the stipulated price of $500,000 as per the Nutbrown v Thornton and Wolverhampton Corp v Emmons case. However in situation where the car in contacts was a late model Mercedes Benz the court in this situation would not allow specific to Adam for the breach of contract done by Edwin. This is because Adam would be able to procure the Mercedes Benz model easily from elsewhere as per the Cohen v Roche case. Conclusion Adam can get specific performance for Rolls Royce Adam cannot get specific performance for Mercedes Benz References Cohen v Roche [1927] 1 KB 169 Hadley v Baxendale (1854) EWHC J70 Nutbrown v Thornton (1804) 10 Ves 1 Posner v Scott-Lewis [1987] 3 All ER 513 Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd (1949) 2 KB 528 Wolverhampton Corp v Emmons [1901] 1 KB 515