• Print
  • Contracts accounts for 145 out of 726 casebriefs.

Style of causeRatio

Vorvis v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1085

The claim for compensation (aggravated damages) for mental distress must be grounded in an independently actionable conduct. NOTE: due to Whiten you no longer need an actionable wrong

Warner Brothers Pictures Inc v Nelson. [1936] 3 All ER 160

Where a contract for personal service contains negative covenants the enforcement of which will not amount to a decree of specific performance or a decree requiring the defendant to remain idle (have other options to work in this case), the Court will enforce negative covenants by an injunction.
The Court will not grant specific performance of a contract when it is for personal service, nor will it grant an injunction when it is the basis of someone’s livelihood.

Wheeler v. Klaholt, 178 Mass. I4I (1901)

Where a prior relationship exists and there is an obligation to return the goods because they are in your possession when you don’t want them and haven’t purchased them, and you don’t send them back, failure to do anything could mean acceptance
**Silence coupled with refusing to send goods back may be acceptance.

White & Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor [1961] UKHL 5

If there is a legitimate interest, other then immediate financial interest, to perform the contract then the party is entitled to recover damages.
**If you cant show you have legitimate interest in waiting or performing then you have a duty to mitigate

White v Bluett (1853) 23 LJ Ex 36

There must be valid consideration for a contract. Reciprocal exchange is a necessary element of consideration.

Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co., 2002 SCC 18

Punitive damages are awarded in cases where there was a duty to act in good faith. You must have bad faith to get punitive damages. (Gets around actionable wrong – just breach of good faith is a wrong).
Damages have to be proportional to the judgment and it must also be rational.

Williams v Roffey Bros. and Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1 QB 1

An abandonment of the contract by consensus of both parties can constitute good consideration for a subsequent contract where:
**The party promising to increase the payment offered receives a practical benefit, AND
**There is no economic duress or fraud on the part of the receiver of the payment

Williams v. Carwardine, [1833] EWHC KB J44.

There can be a contract with any person who performed the necessary condition(s) in a advertisement.

All that was necessary to fulfill the contract was that she knew of the reward before giving the information (even if her only motive to give the information was for the reward).

Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon, 222 N.Y. 88, 118 N.E. 214 (1917)

Where there is an obligation (on both parties) under a contract that is considered valid consideration

Wroth v Tyler [1974] Ch 30; [1973] 1 All ER 897

If damages are awarded in substitution for specific performance, the court should award such damages as will put the plaintiff into as good as position as if the contract had been performed, even if to do so means awarding damages assessed by reference to a period subsequent to the date of breach.

Contemplation of parties in Hadley v Baxendale only applies to type or head of damages contemplated by parties – it does not affect the quantum of damages under a specific type or head of damages (if parties contemplated the type of damage, it does not matter if they did not think the amount of damages would be so high – the breaching party is still liable)