Chaplin v Hicks - Lecture notes 1 PDF

Preview

Summary

case summary ...

Description

Chaplin v Hicks Defendant said he was continually getting engagements by ladies. So, the readers of the newspaper he was published in should pick 12 women he would offer engagements to. The defendant would then select 24 photos to be published and out of those pick 12 winners. The first 3 get an engagement at 5l per week, the second 3 would get 4l per week and the final 3 3l per week, all for 3 years. But the response was overwhelming and the defendant got 6000 photos. He changed the rules. 300 photos were picked. UK divided into 10 districts and the photos of each district would be put in the newspaper for that district. Readers then voted for the most beautiful. The defendant would visit each district and meet the top 5 girls for each. From these 50, the defendant would select the 12 he wanted. Plaintiff made the top 50. The defendants secretary sent a letter to the plaintiff’s London address but she was in Dundee. The letter was readdressed but arrived the day of the appointment by which time the plaintiff couldn’t make her appointment. She tried for another appointment but it was unsuccessful. She brought action to recover damages on the ground that the defendants breach of contract had lost her the chance of selection for an engagement. Jury found damages of 100l. Vaughan Williams Defendant appealed said only entitled to nominal not substantial damages. Substantial damages cannot be recovered where the claim is merely for the loss of a benefit which might or might not have accured the plaintiff. A chance of winning is a non-assessable probability. The defendant’s argument was that 1) Damages were too remote 2) They were unassessable

Test for remoteness – were damages a natural consequence of the breach? Were they contemplated by parties as a possible result of the breach? She did not have reasonable opportunity to present herself. There is a breach. So it is impossible to say the result and such damages were not within the contemplation of these parties. Secondly damages involved so many contingencies it is impossible to calculate. 50 competitors. 12 prizes. 1 in 4 chance. Sometimes the damages are so unassessable that the doctrine of averages would be inapplicable. Judge disagrees that because damages cannot be arrived at with precision that the jury has no function in assessment of them. It does not relieve the worng-doing of the necessity of paying damages. Appeal failed. For the jury to decide Fletcher Moulton.

Contention that damages are too remote is unsustainable Defendant says it is impossible to say whether plaintiff would have obtained any prize. But it is an injury. The jury must do their best to estimate damages. Appeal dismiised Farwell L.J In the present competition we find chance upon chance. Two of which she passed through. From being on eof six thousand to one of fifty, she was first in her division. Appeal dismissed....