Remedies Cases

  1. Hadley v. Baxendale
    • Established prevailing language of foreseeability and effect
    • Established 2 contexts for contract damages
  2. 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)
  3. EVRA Case (telegraph)
    • Bank could not have estimated the consequences of its negligence and
    • The plantiff could have averted disaster by simple precautions
  4. Grayson Case (opera singer)
    • makes distinction betwen two kinds of special talents
    • Trained and natural
  5. Jorgenson
    • Gives us the lost chance doctrine
    • Failed to properly diagnose chronic infection, lost his leg
  6. Bigelow
    Exception to strict certainty rules where defendant by his own wrong prevented a more precise computation
  7. Story Parchment
    Where damage is certain result of wrong, then libralize rule to uncertainty with respect to amount
  8. Kodak
    When defendant made it dificult to ascertain precise damages, defendant cant complain that the damages arent precise
  9. 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
  10. Pipkin
    party seeking damages in K need not prove amount with absolute certainty, reasonable showing sufficient
  11. Tillis
    Damages must be certain in both amont and whether they will result at all
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. Zimmerman
    Reasonable standard to unique persons (religious objections to transusions
  15. Radford v. Norris
    Reasonablness is a jury question except in the clearest of cases (recomended excercises to alleviate problems)
  16. Southwest Engineering
    Fair because agreement would have been binding if loss was greater (both sides took calculated risk)
  17. Norwalk Door Closer
    No damages since equitable principles applicable where no actual loss, court must do justice
  18. Knuton v. Cofield
    Damages may be recovered under such clause even if no actual damages, so long as clause survives penalty attack
  19. Wangen (mustang)
    • Mass tort punitives
    • determines that the courts can work with this worst case scenerio
  20. TXO Productions
    • upheld 10mil punitives with 19k compensatory
    • due process requires reasonableness standard, here award not grossly excessive
  21. Honda Motor Company
    oregon constitutional amendment prohibiting revew of punitive awards was unconstitutional (judicial review=dueprocess)
  22. BMW
    gives ballpark of 10-1 for punitives, says that 500-1 is clearly breathtaking and raises judicial eybrow
  23. State Farm Mutual
    affirms procedural and subnstantive constitutional limits of punitives, vague instructions to avoid passion and prejudice inadequate
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. Grayson-Robinson Stores
    court enforces the arbitration agreement for specific performance
  27. Wroth and Another v. Tyler
    undesirable to require husband to undertake legal proceedings against his wife, expecially while they live together
  28. Hunter v. Diocese of Wilmington
    50 registration vs. 50-100k loss
  29. Campbell Soup v Wentz
    hard, not uncounscionable, contract with carrot farmer not enforceable at equity (too hard for a court of conscience to enforce)
  30. Highland v. City of Eugene
    refuses to enforce deed restriction barring use of park for housing for returning vets
  31. In re farr
    point is reached so that incarceration becomes penal, ceases to serve its coercive purpose
  32. Walker Case
    petetioners violated court order, even though the injunction should not have been issued, the violation is contempt
  33. Walker exceptions
    • Lack of Jurisdiction
    • Injunction transparently invalid
    • Sought challenge but faced delay or frustration
  34. NFL Properties v. Coniglio
    • rejects injunction, named parties included jon does
    • says it would invite catastrophe...deprivations of due process, and jurisdictional flaws
  35. Paschall Inc
    most significant requirement for recovery on a quasi contract is that the enrichment to the defendant must be unjust
  36. Harris Case
    court notes that restitution is available not just in rescission cases, but as an alternative remedy
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. Berry Case
    Contractor repairing D's building, building catches on fire and Contracter repairs to "save" building, D held liable in quasi
  40. 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)
  41. Maglica
    Benefit in quantum meruit is value of goods and services provided
  42. Campbell v. TVA
    Contract price is rule of thumb measure where actual enrichement or benefit is difficult to prove
  43. McManus
    higher taxes and investment of funds into mingled business account insufficient to satisfy change in position
  44. 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)
  45. Rogers
    Tracing requirement may be relaxed where necessary to avoid harsh consequences of legal formalism
  46. 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
  47. Ramsey v Burlington
    sustaining collateral source rule against claim oramsy was receivi0ng monthly railroad disability benefits
  48. Capelouto
    • Infants cry of hurt is as poignant as the most detailed exposition
    • Pain and suffering can be inferred
  49. Krouse v. Graham
    awarded damages to all parties, lump sum to family, special to husband and seperate to neighbor
  50. 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
  51. Sid Dillon Chevrolet
    Equity will not enjoin a libel
  52. Birnbaum
    No award for injury to democracy
  53. Hewlett (damaged old boat case)
    Court sustains cost of repair, even though its not going to be repaird
  54. General Outdoor Advertising
    • permanent injury=MV of loss
    • not permanant= cost of restoration even if greater than MV loss
  55. Alyeska pipeline
    • harsh rule for stealing slate
    • uses plaintiffs value for decorative slate
    • no punitives though
  56. Somerville v. Jacobs
    • built accidently on wrong lot
    • holds for improver to prevent unjust enrichment
  57. Gilpin v Jacob
    • breached covenant by blocking protected airspace
    • no right to equitable relief
  58. Spain v City of Cape
    essential factor distinguishing between permanant and temporary nuisance is abatability
  59. Gannet v Register publishin
    Register may not now elect to disaffirm because as a matter of law it has elected to affirm
  60. AJ Automotive
    • Buyer sough rescission after 4 yrs
    • Return not required to be in identical condition, only return reasonable value
  61. Selman v Shirly
    Real duty is to award victim of fraud all damages which are a proximate result of the wrong he comitted
  62. Earl v Saks
    • gives 2 contexts for recission where fraud
    • here he didnt get what he thought he was getting
  63. Janigan v Taylor
    Were gains were proximate consequence of fraud the windfalls should go to defrauded party and disgorge fraudulent enrichment
  64. Phoenix v Steiden
    party who knows they dont know assumed the risk
  65. Admiral Insurance v. American
    mistake of fact is basis for restitution, mistake of law is not
  66. Sherwood v Walker
    Sterile Cow
  67. Wood v Boynton
    rock was a diamond
  68. Renner v. Kehl
    award of consequentials not barred in rescission actions under election of remedies theory
  69. Renner
    basic assumption of the contract, neither party bore risk so K voided
Card Set
Remedies Cases
Remedies Cases