Expectation, reliance and restitution: one measure of damages under multiple names
By the Hon Justice Elisabeth Peden and Daniel Reede
The decision in Cessnock City Council v 123 259 932 Pty Ltd demonstrates the potential complexity of the law of damages for breach of contract. The subject is of course large, covering nominal and substantial damages, pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss, Hadley v Baxendale, mitigation, the rule on penalties, and so on. Taking its lead from Cessnock, this paper focuses on just one aspect of this area of the law: the proper measure of damages. It aims to assist practitioners by providing an overview of some settled principles, recent cases and boundary issues.
Contract damages: key principles and the latest High Court decisions
By Jeffrey Goldberger
• Fundamental conceptions
• The governing purpose of an award of damages for breach of contract
• Limitations on the Robinson v Harman rule
• Expectation damages and reliance damages
• Damages for distress and disappointment
Unjust, unconscionable and unfair: an overview
By Alexander Humphreys and Jasmine Robertson
This paper will canvass the current iterations of what it means for a contract to be ‘unjust’, ‘unconscionable’ or ‘unfair’ under the general law, and the various statutory regimes. This paper is written in two independent, but equally relevant parts — noting that it is often the case that the causes of action canvassed herein often arise in analogous factual scenarios.
Expectation, reliance and restitution: one measure of damages under multiple names
By Hon Justice Elisabeth Peden and Daniel Reede
page
4
Contract damages: key principles and the latest High Court decisions
By Jeffrey Goldberger
page
15
Unjust, unconscionable and unfair: an overview
By Alexander Humphreys and Jasmine Robertson
page
28