REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AS PER CONTRACT-1 BY R.K.BANGIA.

1. REMEDIES FOR
BREACH OF
CONTRACT.
MUNAZZA
FIRST YEAR BA.LLB,
SECOND SEMESTER [2022-23],
SCHOOL OF LAW,
UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE.

2. INDEX.
• INTRODUCTION TO DAMAGES.
• REMEDIES TO BREACH OF CONTRACT,
(A) REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES.
(B) MEASURE OF DAMAGES.
• CONCLUSION.
• BIBLIOGRAPHY.

3. INTRODUCTION TO DAMAGES.
• SECTION 73 OF INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 STATES FOR THE
COMPENSATION FOR
LOSS OR DAMAGE CAUSED BY BREACH OF CONTRACT.
• SECTION 74 OF INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 STATES FOR FAILURE
TO DISCHARGE OF
OBLIGATION RESEMBLING THOSE CREATED BY CONTRACT.
• IN ESTIMATING THE LOSS OR DAMAGE ARISING FROM A BREACH
OF CONTRACT, THE
MEANS WHICH EXISTED OF REMEDYING THE INCONVENIENCE
CAUSED BY THE NON
PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT MUST BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.

4. (A) REMOTENESS OF DAMAGE:
• ‘WHERE TWO PARTIES HAVE MADE A CONTRACT WHICH ONE OF THEM IS BROKEN,
DAMAGES WHICH THE OTHER PARTY OUGHT TO RECEIVE IN RESPECT OF SUCH
BREACH OF CONTRACT SHOULD BE SUCH AS MAY FAIRLY AND REASONABLY BE
CONSIDERED EITHER ARISING NATURALLY, i.e., ACCORDING TO THE USUAL COURSE
OF THINGS, FROM SUCH BREACH OF CONTRACT ITSELF, OR SUCH AS MAY
REASONABLY BE SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN IN THE CONTEMPLATION OF BOTH THE
PARTIES, AT THE TME THEY MADE THE CONTRACT, AS THE PROBABLE RESULT OF THE
BREACH OF IT.
• [1] DAMAGE ARISING IN THE USUAL COURSE OF THINGS.
• [2] MORE LOSS ARISING FROM THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES.
• [3] DELAY IN CARRIAGE OF GOODS MEANT FOR SALE.
• [4] COMPENSATION FOR MENTAL ANGUISH.
• [5] WHEN MONETARY COMPENSATION IS NOT ADEQUATE RELIEF.
• [6] BREACH OF PROMISE TO MARRY.
• [7] CLAIM BY STRANDED PASSENGERS.
• [8] DAMAGES FOR PRE- CONTRACT AND WASTED EXPENDITURE.

5. • [1] DAMAGE ARISING IN THE USUAL COURSE OF THINGS:
COMPENSATION CAN BE CLAIMED FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE THAT AROSE IN
USUAL COURSE OF THINGS FROM THE BREACH OF CONTRACT.
- FIRST BRANCH OF RULE UNDER CASE OF HADLEY v/s BAXENDALE.
• [2] MORE LOSS ARISING FROM THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES:
IF LOSS ARISES DUE TO SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE, THE PERSON WHO MADE BREACH
OF CONTRACT CAN BE LIABLE IF HE HAD KNOWLEDGE OF IT WHILE MAKING THE
CONTRACT.
- SECOND BRANCH OF RULE UNDER CASE OF HADLEY v/s BAXENDALE.
• [3] DELAY IN CARRIAGE OF GOODS MEANT FOR SALE:
IF THE CARRIER CAUSES DELAY IN DELIVERING GOODS, LIABILITY IS DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN PRICES PREVAILING ON AGREED DATE OF DELIVERY AND THAT DATE ON WHICH
GOODS ARE DELIVERED ACTUALLY.
- CASE OF WILSON v/s LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY.

6. • [4] COMPENSATION FOR MENTAL ANGUISH:
- CASE OF GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v/s UNION OF INDIA.
• [5] WHEN MONETARY COMPENSATION IS NOT ADEQUATE RELIEF:
- CASE OF SANDEEP CEMENT (P) Ltd. v/s UNION OF INDIA.
• [6] BREACH OF PROMISE TO MARRY:
THERE RESULTS INJURY TO FEELINGS AND DISAPPOINTMENT AND FOR THAT EXEMPLORY
DAMAGES CAN BE CLAIMED.
- CASE OF PREMA v/s MUSTAK AHMED.
• [7] CLAIM BY STRANDED PASSENGERS:
- CASE OF HOBBS v/s L&S.W. RAILWAYS.
• [8] DAMAGES FOR PRE-CONTRACT AND WASTED EXPENDITURE:
- CASE OF ANGLIA TELEVISION Ltd. v/s ROBERT REED.

7. (B) MEASURE OF DAMAGES:
• THE OBJECT OF AWARDING DAMAGES TO THE AGGRIEVED PARTY IS TO PUT HIM IN
THE SAME POSITION IN WHICH HE WOULD HAVE BENN IF THE CONTRACT HAS BEEN
PERFORMED. DAMAGES ARE, THEREFORE, ASSESSED ON THAT BASIS. IF A PARTY
TAKES SECURITY DEPOSIT FROM THE OTHER FOR THE DUE PERFORMANCE OF THE
CONTRACT, HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO FORFEIT THE DEPOSIT ON THE GROUNG OF
DEFAULT, WHEN NO HARM IS CAUSED TO HIM ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH DEFAULT.
• [1] ACTUAL RE-SALE BY THE SELLER NOT NECESSARY.
• [2] DAMAGES WHEN GOODS HAVE FIXED MARKET PRICE.
• [3] LOSS OF PROFIT ON A SUB-CONTRACT.
• [4] DAMAGES IN CASE OF DELIVERY BY INSTALLMENTS.
- CASE OF BISMI ABDULLAH v/s REGIONAL MANAGER, F.C.I, TRIVANDRUM.

8. • [1] ACTUAL RE-SALE BY THE SELLER NOT NECESSARY:
- CASE OF JAMAL v/s MOOLA DAWOOD SONS & CO.
• [2] DAMAGES WHEN GOODS HAVE FIXED MARKET PRICE:
SOMETIMES, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CONTRACT PRICE AND MARKET
PRICE. CAN THE SELLER RECOVER DAMAGES FROM THE BUYER ON THE BASIS OF BEING
DEPRIVED OF THE PROFIT WHICH HE WOULD HAVE MADE, HAD THE BUYER TAKEN THE GOODS?
- CASE OF CHARTER v/s SULLIVAN.
• [3] LOSS OF PROFIT ON A SUB-CONTRACT:
WHEN THE SELLER DOES NOT SUPPLY THE GOODS TO THE BUYER AND HE IS UNABLE TO EARN
CERTAIN PROFIT WHICH HE COULD HAVE MADE BY SUPPLING THE GOODS FURTHER UNDER A
SUB-CONTRACT, HE IS NOT TO RECOVER THE LOSS OF EXPECTED PROFIT, BUT HIS RIGHT IS ONLY
TO RECOVER THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CONTRACT PRICE AND MARKET PRICE ONLY.
• [4] DAMAGES IN CASE OF DELIVERY BY INSTALLMENTS:
WHEN THE GOODS ARE TO BE DELIVERED BY INSTALLMENTS, THE MEASURE OF DAMAGES OF A
PARTICULAR INSTALLMENT, ON THE FINAL DATE OF PERFORMANCE OF THAT INSTALLMENT.
- CASE OF ROPER v/s JOHNSON.

9. CONCLUSION:
• THE PERSON MAKING THE BREACH OF CONTRACT IS LIABLE ONLY FOR THE PROXIMATE
CONSEQUENCES OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT. HE IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE DAMAGE
WHICH IS REMOTELY CONNECTED WITH BREACH OF CONTRACT. IN OTHER WORDS, THE
FIRST PROBLEM IS OF ‘REMOTENESS OF DAMAGE’.
• IF IT IS FOUND THAT A PARTICULAR DAMAGE IS THE PROXIMATE RESULT OF THE BREACH
OF CONTRACT RATHER THAN TOO REMOTE WHICH INVOLVES DETERMINING THE
‘QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION’ AS HOW MUCH OF THE COMPENSATION TO BE PAID FOR
THE SAME. THIS IN OTHER WORDS IS THE PROBLEM OF ‘MEASURE OF DAMAGES’.
• IN ABSENCE OF AGREEMENT SPECIFYING DAMAGES FOR BREACHES ALLEGED BY THE
PARTY, SECTION 74 IS NOT AT ALL ATTRACTED.

10. BIBLIOGRAPHY/ REFERENCE:
• CONTRACT-1 – Dr. R. K. BANGIA, CHANDIGARH, EIGHT
EDITION – LAW OF CONTRACT-1 WITH SPECIFIC RELIEF
ACT, REVISED BY Dr. NARENDRA KUMAR, FORMER
PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, PUNJAB
UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH. 2021 - EIGHT EDITION,
PAGE NO. 365-385. PUBLISHED BY ALLAHABAD LAW
AGENCY, LAW PUBLISHERS, FARIDABAD [HARYANA],
INDIA.
• CASE OF ROPER v/s JOHNSON, CASE NO. 4:19CV02061,
CASETEXT SEARCH + CITATOR – GOOGLE WEBSITE
SEARCH. CASETEXT –
https://casetext.com.ropervjohnson.

11. THANK YOU….