Victoria Laundry wished to expand their business, and they ordered a large boiler from the defendants, Newman Industries. Delivery was to take place on 5 June. The boiler was damaged before delivery, and delivery was delayed until 8 November. The plaintiff claimed for the profit that they would have earned with the boiler in the time between 5 June and 8 November. In particular, they claimed for the loss of, first, the extra laundry business that they could have taken on with immediate use of the new boiler, and, second, the loss of a number of highly lucrative dyeing contracts which they could have obtained with the Ministry of Supply.
The Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff could recover for the ordinary extra laundry business that they would have taken on. As the defendant knew, at the time of contracting, that the plaintiff was a launderer and dyer and required the boiler for immediate use in its business, these were losses occurring in the 'usual course of things' and satisfied the first limb of the Hadley v Baxendale test. The defendant must be presumed to have anticipated that some loss of profits would occur by reason of its delay and these ordinary business profits were therefore recoverable.
The plaintiff's loss of the lucrative dyeing contracts was considered too unusual and far reaching to satisfy the first limb of the Hadley v Baxendale test. It was therefore necessary for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant had sufficient actual knowledge of the particular and special circumstances to be aware of the risk. No notice had been given of the possible, highly lucrative, dyeing contracts. Lord Justice Asquith held that, in the absence of special knowledge on its part, the defendant could not reasonably foresee the additional losses suffered by the plaintiff's inability to accept the highly lucrative dyeing contracts and so these losses also failed to satisfy the second limb of the Hadley v Baxendale test and were therefore irrecoverable.
Answer
Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd [1949] 2 KB 528
Tags
#contract #law #remedies
Question
Victoria Laundry wished to expand their business, and they ordered a large boiler from the defendants, Newman Industries. Delivery was to take place on 5 June. The boiler was damaged before delivery, and delivery was delayed until 8 November. The plaintiff claimed for the profit that they would have earned with the boiler in the time between 5 June and 8 November. In particular, they claimed for the loss of, first, the extra laundry business that they could have taken on with immediate use of the new boiler, and, second, the loss of a number of highly lucrative dyeing contracts which they could have obtained with the Ministry of Supply.
The Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff could recover for the ordinary extra laundry business that they would have taken on. As the defendant knew, at the time of contracting, that the plaintiff was a launderer and dyer and required the boiler for immediate use in its business, these were losses occurring in the 'usual course of things' and satisfied the first limb of the Hadley v Baxendale test. The defendant must be presumed to have anticipated that some loss of profits would occur by reason of its delay and these ordinary business profits were therefore recoverable.
The plaintiff's loss of the lucrative dyeing contracts was considered too unusual and far reaching to satisfy the first limb of the Hadley v Baxendale test. It was therefore necessary for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant had sufficient actual knowledge of the particular and special circumstances to be aware of the risk. No notice had been given of the possible, highly lucrative, dyeing contracts. Lord Justice Asquith held that, in the absence of special knowledge on its part, the defendant could not reasonably foresee the additional losses suffered by the plaintiff's inability to accept the highly lucrative dyeing contracts and so these losses also failed to satisfy the second limb of the Hadley v Baxendale test and were therefore irrecoverable.
Answer
?
Tags
#contract #law #remedies
Question
Victoria Laundry wished to expand their business, and they ordered a large boiler from the defendants, Newman Industries. Delivery was to take place on 5 June. The boiler was damaged before delivery, and delivery was delayed until 8 November. The plaintiff claimed for the profit that they would have earned with the boiler in the time between 5 June and 8 November. In particular, they claimed for the loss of, first, the extra laundry business that they could have taken on with immediate use of the new boiler, and, second, the loss of a number of highly lucrative dyeing contracts which they could have obtained with the Ministry of Supply.
The Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff could recover for the ordinary extra laundry business that they would have taken on. As the defendant knew, at the time of contracting, that the plaintiff was a launderer and dyer and required the boiler for immediate use in its business, these were losses occurring in the 'usual course of things' and satisfied the first limb of the Hadley v Baxendale test. The defendant must be presumed to have anticipated that some loss of profits would occur by reason of its delay and these ordinary business profits were therefore recoverable.
The plaintiff's loss of the lucrative dyeing contracts was considered too unusual and far reaching to satisfy the first limb of the Hadley v Baxendale test. It was therefore necessary for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant had sufficient actual knowledge of the particular and special circumstances to be aware of the risk. No notice had been given of the possible, highly lucrative, dyeing contracts. Lord Justice Asquith held that, in the absence of special knowledge on its part, the defendant could not reasonably foresee the additional losses suffered by the plaintiff's inability to accept the highly lucrative dyeing contracts and so these losses also failed to satisfy the second limb of the Hadley v Baxendale test and were therefore irrecoverable.
Answer
Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd [1949] 2 KB 528
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it A good factual example of the application of the Hadley v Baxendale remoteness test can be found in the case of Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd [1949] 2 KB 528. Victoria Laundry wished to expand their business, and they ordered a large boiler from the defendants, Newman Industries. Delivery was to take place on 5 June. The boiler was damaged b
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.