- This topic has 3 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Bild Ltd
Astride entered into a contract with Bild Ltd to construct a wall around the garden of a house she had just purchased. The wall was to be three metres high to block out a view of a rubbish tip.
Bild Ltd finished the wall on 25 May. However when Astride came to examine it for the first time she found that it was only 2.50 metres high and that the rubbish tip was still visible from the top of her garden. The cost of making the wall meet the required height is £2,000.Question:
Which of the following remedies would Astride claim for?
Specific performance
Nominal damages
Injunction
Damages of £2,000According to cost benefit analysis it would not be reasonable to get damages of 2000. Since the difference is only little. They should be entitled to just nominal damages as in Ruxley electronics and construction Ltd vs forysth 1995?
Neither specific performance nor injunction would be appropriate here.
So damages is the answer.
But nominal or £2,000
Sadly, in cases / situations like this, we are never given sufficient detail about the background to the case. Did Astride make a specific point to Bild Ltd about the rubbish tip and the required wall height?
If she did, then she has a good ground for claiming £2,000
If she didn’t, then there could be an argument for nominal damages only.
The Ruxley case involved a swimming pool. What is the loss of amenity value in a pool that is just 30 centimeters too shallow? How often do you actually use that bottom 30 centimeters? I believe that I say in lectures that unless the pool was being built at the home of a professional Olympic diver where depth of water could be life-threateningly vital, it’s likely that nominal damages would be awarded.
But in Astride’s case, that loss of amenity (the failure to hide the local rubbish tip) could be seen to be relatively important.
I admire your thinking that Ruxley could apply, but I think it’s not appropriate here.
OK?
Since this is not posting as separate topic:
Andy’s company operates a fleet of haulage trucks that transport goods to commercial depots and warehouses all around the country. Andy himself often works as a truck driver, delivering goods. At the depot of one of Andy’s clients, Hazelwood Ltd, the following notice is in place.
“For commercial delivery use only. The use of these facilities is strictly at your own risk and Hazelwood Ltd accepts no liability whatsoever for any damage or injury sustained by either those using this facility or their vehicles or property, no matter how caused.’
Andy was aware of the notice, but had never paid much attention to it. However, one day, after delivering some goods to Hazelwood Ltd, he returned to his truck to find that it had been badly damaged by a towing vehicle driven by an employee of Hazelwood Ltd. Whilst on his way to the office to complain, he wos hit by the same towing vehicle. As a result, not only was his truck severely damaged, but he suffered a broken leg and was off work for eight weeks.
Hazelwood Ltd has accepted that its employee was negligent on both counts but denies any liability, relying on the exclusion clause.
(a)
Which TWO of the following are characteristics of valid exclusion clauses?
1)Excludes all liability on a contract altogether
2)Restricts liability on a contract by limiting damages
3)Excludes onerous conditions in the contract
4)Excludes certain contract terms from applying in certain situationsI know answer is 2, but I thought the other would be 4. But it’s 1. HOW AND WHY? And why not 4?
(b)
Will Andy receive damages from Hazelwood Ltd in respect of the following:The damage to his truck:
The injury to his leg:The answer to both is will recieve damages. I know under UCTA personal injury due to negligence can’t be excluded. So they will recieve damages. But why fir truck damage??
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.