Similarly, EBWS did not have an employment contract with its employees requiring them to pay wages for repairs, declines in market demand or for other reasons during shutdown periods. Any loss EBWS may incur in the future as a result of electing to pay its employees for repairs during a plant closure would be a voluntary expense and would not be taken into account by Britly at the time of entering into the construction contract. It is not reasonable to expect Britly to foresee losses arising from informal agreements that do not involve a legal obligation for EBWS to pay. “It is not assumed that [t]he parties know the state of affairs of the other or take into account contracts with third parties that are not disclosed.” [quote] While it is true that EBWS may have business reasons to pay its employees even without contractual obligations, for example: to ensure employee loyalty, but EBWS did not provide any evidence during the trial to support a valid justification for such considerations. In those circumstances, that commercial decision goes beyond what Britly could reasonably have foreseen as damages for breach … Specific enforcement refers to the court that obliges the defendant to perform certain actions. [9] This type of equitable remedy is limited in scope since, for example, in contract law, the provision of a certain service would require that the property giving rise to the dispute be unique or that it be more practical for the defendant to indemnify the plaintiff by paying damages. [6] In both the common law and common law systems, the right of appeal distinguishes between a remedy (e.g., a certain amount of pecuniary damages) and equitable relief (e.g., a specific injunction or enforcement). Another type of remedy available in these systems is declaratory action, where a court determines the rights of the parties without awarding damages or seeking equitable relief. The type of remedies applicable in specific cases depends on the nature of the unlawful act and its responsibility. [1] You will recall that there are many circumstances in which a person can avoid a contract: coercion, undue influence, misrepresentation (fraudulent, negligent or innocent) or error. However, a party may lose the right to circumvent and thus the right to appeal in various ways. Corrective actions are specific and cumulative; The former are those that can be used only to restore a right or punish a crime; For example, if a law makes what was previously legal illegal and provides for a specific remedy, it is specific and must be prosecuted, not another.
However, if an offence has already been punished by a common law proceeding, such as an indictment, and a statute requires a particular remedy, that particular remedy is cumulative and the proceeding may be conducted under the common law or the statute. There are several restrictions on an aggrieved party`s right to obtain contractual remedies for infringement, in addition to the restrictions fairly agreed upon by the parties. The damage suffered by the non-breaching party must be reasonably foreseeable. The non-offending party must make reasonable efforts to mitigate the damage, otherwise the amount awarded will be reduced by the damage that could have been avoided. The party claiming damages must be able to indicate, within reasonable limits, the amount of harm it suffered as a result of the breach. If he cannot express himself with a certain degree of certainty – if the damages are truly speculative – he will be entitled to symbolic damages, and that is all. There are circumstances in which a party who could have evaded a contractual obligation – has avoided it – loses the power to do so, and his remedy of contestation is lost. It is not uncommon for a person to enter into a contract for services or goods containing a limitation of his right to compensation if the other party violates it. That`s fine, unless the restriction is unscrupulous. Sometimes the parties have to choose between two or more possible bases for recovery.
If the remedies are truly mutually exclusive and one of them is chosen, the aggrieved party loses the right to sue the others.