The paper "Remedies that Harriet Has against Super Sucker Limited " is a perfect example of a business case study. The issue is; What are the remedies that Harriet has against Super Sucker Limited and the remedies if any for Sully? Harriet failed to fulfill her contract with Sully that required her to carry out cleaning services. Harriet could have obtained a special fee of £ 2000 if she had fulfilled the contract. The breach of contract resulted from a purchase of a vacuum cleaner from Super Sucker Limited. Harriet had made the purchase in order to enable her fulfill her obligations in the contract with Sully.
However, the vacuum cleaner lacked Vacuum’ s power supply rendering it unusable. Harriet was free in the afternoon as she could not perform the work and went for a drive and was involved in an accident after running into a tree. Harriet had to spend £ 500 for repairing the car. Sully could not sell the house to Barry as initially planned as it was not cleaned by Harriet. She ended up selling the house to Roger for £ 60,000 less than intended.
The failure of Super Sucker to provide the Vacuum’ s power supply led to the inability of Harriet to fulfill the contract, car accident and loss of money by Sully. Rules The businesses have a duty to care towards their client. It is the responsibility of the businesses to ensure that their products are not likely to harm the customers. The duty to care is a question of law and this was highlighted in the case of Sullivan v Moody. The organizations are required t act reasonable in order to prevent losses for their clients.
This includes the economic loss which may result from the breach of duty to care. Negligence on the part of the business gives rise to a breach of duty to care. However, the duty to care is not automatic and the plaintiff has to prove that they were owed a duty to care by the defendant in a court of law. The breach of duty to care gives rise to vicarious liability in case of negligence. In other instances, a third party may be harmed as a result of a breach of duty to care.
The defendant can be held liable in some specific incidences where the breach of duty to care causes harm or losses to a third party. This was highlighted in the case of Bryan v Maloney where a third party suffered economic losses as a result of the breach of duty to care by a defendant. It is therefore important for the businesses to ensure that they provide their clients with high-quality products and services and will not cause them any harm.
A defendant is still liable in case of breach of duty to care even in the event that there is no written contract. A breach of contract causes an innocent party to suffer losses which may be financial or non-financial. In case of a breach of contract, the innocent party can sue for damages. The damages for breach of contract are compensatory in nature. The innocent party can claim damages under different categories which include expectation loss, reliance loss and restitution. The expectation loss involves the loss of profits or expectations that the claimant was entitled to under the contract.
This was highlighted in the case of Tongish v Thomas. The plaintiff suffered losses as a result of a breach of contract by the defendant after the sale of seedlings. The reliance loss involves loss of expenditure resulting in the reliance on the promise made by the defendant which was not fulfilled. Awarding damages due to reliance on loss is for the purposes of putting the innocent party in a position that they would have been if the contract had not been made.
It, therefore, acts as an indemnity for the out of pocket expenses incurred by the innocent party as a result of relying on the contract. This was highlighted in the case of Anglia Tv v Reed. However, the innocent parties cannot claim for damages when it comes to some types of losses. The damages due to disappointments or mental distress cannot be generally awarded. The measure of damages is an important aspect that has to be considered by the courts in order to ensure that the innocent party is able to be in a position they would have been had the contract been performed properly.
MacIntyre, E., 2007. Essentials of Business Law. Pearson Education.
Nickolas, J., 2013. Business Law, 3rd Edition. John Wiley & Sons Australia.
Poole, J., 2012. Casebook on contract law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Clarke, P., Clarke, J., & Zhou, M., 2012. Contract law: commentaries, cases and perspectives. Oxford University Press.
Sullivan v Moody  HCA 59
Bryan v Maloney (1995) 182 CLR 609, 619
Tongish v. Thomas (79) (KS 1992)
Anglia Tv v Reed  1 QB 60
Hadley v Baxendale  EWHC J 70
Rockingham County v Luten Bridge Co (124) (4th Cir. 1929)
Pilkington v Wood  Ch 770