-
Hadley v. Baxendale
- Established prevailing language of foreseeability and effect
- Established 2 contexts for contract damages
-
Kinsman Case
- Where damages arise from the very forces set in motion that dcreated the duty and risk of harm, unforeseeability of the exact developments and extent of loss will not limit liability
- (at some point it becomes too tenuous)
-
EVRA Case (telegraph)
- Bank could not have estimated the consequences of its negligence and
- The plantiff could have averted disaster by simple precautions
-
Grayson Case (opera singer)
- makes distinction betwen two kinds of special talents
- Trained and natural
-
Jorgenson
- Gives us the lost chance doctrine
- Failed to properly diagnose chronic infection, lost his leg
-
Bigelow
Exception to strict certainty rules where defendant by his own wrong prevented a more precise computation
-
Story Parchment
Where damage is certain result of wrong, then libralize rule to uncertainty with respect to amount
-
Kodak
When defendant made it dificult to ascertain precise damages, defendant cant complain that the damages arent precise
-
Norwood
Must be evidence of damages existence and extent, and some data from which they may be computed, no substantial recovery based on guesswork or inference
-
Pipkin
party seeking damages in K need not prove amount with absolute certainty, reasonable showing sufficient
-
Tillis
Damages must be certain in both amont and whether they will result at all
-
Hall v Dumitru
- Rejects distinction between major and minor sugery
- Key is if proposed treatment could aggravate, develop new, or slight prospect of improvement, there is no duty
-
Alpert v. Monarch
Injured obliged to excersise ordinary care in seeking treatment, has right to avoid peril to life, however slight and undue risks to health and angiosh beyond bounds of reason
-
Zimmerman
Reasonable standard to unique persons (religious objections to transusions
-
Radford v. Norris
Reasonablness is a jury question except in the clearest of cases (recomended excercises to alleviate problems)
-
Southwest Engineering
Fair because agreement would have been binding if loss was greater (both sides took calculated risk)
-
Norwalk Door Closer
No damages since equitable principles applicable where no actual loss, court must do justice
-
Knuton v. Cofield
Damages may be recovered under such clause even if no actual damages, so long as clause survives penalty attack
-
Wangen (mustang)
- Mass tort punitives
- determines that the courts can work with this worst case scenerio
-
TXO Productions
- upheld 10mil punitives with 19k compensatory
- due process requires reasonableness standard, here award not grossly excessive
-
Honda Motor Company
oregon constitutional amendment prohibiting revew of punitive awards was unconstitutional (judicial review=dueprocess)
-
BMW
gives ballpark of 10-1 for punitives, says that 500-1 is clearly breathtaking and raises judicial eybrow
-
State Farm Mutual
affirms procedural and subnstantive constitutional limits of punitives, vague instructions to avoid passion and prejudice inadequate
-
Mathias v. Accor
- Talking about punitives
- Punishment should fit crime
- Defendant should have reasonable notice of sanctions
- Punishment should be based on worn commited, not status of defendant
-
Johnson v. North American Life
- fact that remedy at law is available doesnt oust equity court of equity
- does the RAL compare favorably with remedy in equity
-
Grayson-Robinson Stores
court enforces the arbitration agreement for specific performance
-
Wroth and Another v. Tyler
undesirable to require husband to undertake legal proceedings against his wife, expecially while they live together
-
Hunter v. Diocese of Wilmington
50 registration vs. 50-100k loss
-
Campbell Soup v Wentz
hard, not uncounscionable, contract with carrot farmer not enforceable at equity (too hard for a court of conscience to enforce)
-
Highland v. City of Eugene
refuses to enforce deed restriction barring use of park for housing for returning vets
-
In re farr
point is reached so that incarceration becomes penal, ceases to serve its coercive purpose
-
Walker Case
petetioners violated court order, even though the injunction should not have been issued, the violation is contempt
-
Walker exceptions
- Lack of Jurisdiction
- Injunction transparently invalid
- Sought challenge but faced delay or frustration
-
NFL Properties v. Coniglio
- rejects injunction, named parties included jon does
- says it would invite catastrophe...deprivations of due process, and jurisdictional flaws
-
Paschall Inc
most significant requirement for recovery on a quasi contract is that the enrichment to the defendant must be unjust
-
Harris Case
court notes that restitution is available not just in rescission cases, but as an alternative remedy
-
Felton v. Finley
Whenever services are rendered and received, a contract of hiring or an obligation to pay what they are reasonably worth will be presumed
-
Glenn Case
law will never permit a friendly act, or such as was intended to be an act of kindness or benevolence to avfterwards be converted to pecuniary demand
-
Berry Case
Contractor repairing D's building, building catches on fire and Contracter repairs to "save" building, D held liable in quasi
-
Earhart v Low
benefit was satisfaction of obtaining the other persons compliance with his request to perform services (direct benefit still applies as defense when party did not request performance)
-
Maglica
Benefit in quantum meruit is value of goods and services provided
-
Campbell v. TVA
Contract price is rule of thumb measure where actual enrichement or benefit is difficult to prove
-
McManus
higher taxes and investment of funds into mingled business account insufficient to satisfy change in position
-
Hirsch
all that is required to establish constructive trust is wrongful act resulting in transfer of property and consequent unjust enrichment of another (must trace funds)
-
Rogers
Tracing requirement may be relaxed where necessary to avoid harsh consequences of legal formalism
-
Jones v Laughlin
- Current salary x work years till 65 - min wage work till 65- compensation already recieved + pain and suffering award=damages
- also inflation should affect both future earnings and discounting
-
Ramsey v Burlington
sustaining collateral source rule against claim oramsy was receivi0ng monthly railroad disability benefits
-
Capelouto
- Infants cry of hurt is as poignant as the most detailed exposition
- Pain and suffering can be inferred
-
Krouse v. Graham
awarded damages to all parties, lump sum to family, special to husband and seperate to neighbor
-
Memphis community school v stachura
- damages for violation of right inconsistant with actual injury principle
- Abstract value of right may not be basis for compensatory award
-
Sid Dillon Chevrolet
Equity will not enjoin a libel
-
Birnbaum
No award for injury to democracy
-
Hewlett (damaged old boat case)
Court sustains cost of repair, even though its not going to be repaird
-
General Outdoor Advertising
- permanent injury=MV of loss
- not permanant= cost of restoration even if greater than MV loss
-
Alyeska pipeline
- harsh rule for stealing slate
- uses plaintiffs value for decorative slate
- no punitives though
-
Somerville v. Jacobs
- built accidently on wrong lot
- holds for improver to prevent unjust enrichment
-
Gilpin v Jacob
- breached covenant by blocking protected airspace
- no right to equitable relief
-
Spain v City of Cape
essential factor distinguishing between permanant and temporary nuisance is abatability
-
Gannet v Register publishin
Register may not now elect to disaffirm because as a matter of law it has elected to affirm
-
AJ Automotive
- Buyer sough rescission after 4 yrs
- Return not required to be in identical condition, only return reasonable value
-
Selman v Shirly
Real duty is to award victim of fraud all damages which are a proximate result of the wrong he comitted
-
Earl v Saks
- gives 2 contexts for recission where fraud
- here he didnt get what he thought he was getting
-
Janigan v Taylor
Were gains were proximate consequence of fraud the windfalls should go to defrauded party and disgorge fraudulent enrichment
-
Phoenix v Steiden
party who knows they dont know assumed the risk
-
Admiral Insurance v. American
mistake of fact is basis for restitution, mistake of law is not
-
Sherwood v Walker
Sterile Cow
-
Wood v Boynton
rock was a diamond
-
Renner v. Kehl
award of consequentials not barred in rescission actions under election of remedies theory
-
Renner
basic assumption of the contract, neither party bore risk so K voided
|
|