Various remedies exist in contract law.

These
include:

 Damages
 Repudiation
 Rescission
 Specific performance
 Injunctions
 Restitutionary awards
 

 
  
 
 
Damages in Contract Law

Damages in contract law are a legal remedy

available for breach of contract. Damages are an
award of money to compensate the innocent party.
The primary purpose of damages in contract
law is to place the injured party in the position
they would have been in had the contract been
performed. 

Addis v Gramophone  [1909] AC 488     Case summary

An award of damages in contract law is subject to

the application of the rules on causation,
remoteness and a duty to mitigate loss.
Causation:
The Monarch Steamship v Karlshamns
Oljefabrika [1949] AC 196   Case summary
 

Remoteness:
Under the rules of remoteness of damage in
contract law set out in Hadley v Baxendale, a
claimant may only recover losses which may
reasonably be considered as arising naturally from
the breach or those which may reasonably be
supposed to be in the contemplation of the parties
at the time the contract was made:
 
 
 
Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Ex Ch 341  Case summary

The application of this principle can be seen in the following cases:

Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman

Industries Ltd [1949] 2 KB 528  Case summary
Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All
ER 119  Case summary

Pilkington v Wood [1953] Ch 770   Case summary

Jackson v Royal Bank of Scotland [2005] 1 WLR
377  Case summary
Czarnikow Ltd v Koufos (The Heron II) [1969] 1 AC
350   Case summary
Parsons v Uttley Ingham [1978] QB 791  Case
summary
Duty to mitigate loss
The claimant is not permitted to allow their losses
to mount up. They are under a duty to take
reasonable steps to reduce their loss:
Payzu v Saunders [1919] 2 KB 581  Case summary

Pilkington v Wood [1953] Ch 770 Case summary

Heads of damages
There exist various heads of damage in contract
law under which an amount can be claimed to
reflect different types of loss. These include loss of
bargain, reliance loss, discomfort or
disappointment,  inconvenience, diminution of
future prospects, speculative damages and
liquidated damages.
Reliance loss
 
Where it is difficult to quantify the position the claimant would have
been in it may be possible to recover expenses incurred in reliance
of the contract:

Anglia TV v Reed [1971] 3 All ER 690  Case

summary
Discomfort, disappointment
Damages to reflect discomfort and disappointment
can only be claimed where enjoyment was part of
the bargain of the contract eg holidays or a meal
out or entertainment. This most commonly seen in
holidays which fail to meet the standard the
holiday maker was lead to believe would be
enjoyed:
Jarvis v Swann Tours [1972] 3 WLR 954    Case
summary
Jackson v Horizon Holidays [1975] 1 WLR 1468
Case summary
Inconvenience
 
Where the claimant has been put to physical inconvenience rather
than anger or disappointment that the defendant has not met his
contractual obligation, the court may award a sum to reflect such
inconvenience: 
 

Bailey v Bullock [1950] 2 All ER 1167   Case

summary

Diminution of future prospects

 
Where a breach of contract adversely affects the claimant's future
prospects, for example a contract promising training and
qualifications, a sum can be awarded to reflect the loss:
Dunk v George Waller [1970] 2 QB 163      Case
summary
Speculative damages
 
 
Chaplin v Hicks [1911]2 KB 786         Case summary

Liquidated damages/Penalty clauses

 
 
 
Parties to a contract may legitimately agree the amount of damages
to be paid in the event of a breach and provide for this in their
contract terms. This provides certainty to each party so that they
know exactly what they are liable to pay should they be unable to
perform their obligations. Such a clause will be enforceable by the
courts only in so far as it is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. If it is a
genuine pre-estimate it is known as a liquidated damages clause. If
however, the amount specified in the contract is not a genuine pre-
estimate but is aimed at deterring a breach of contract or punishing
the party in breach, this is known as a penalty clause which is not
enforceable: 

Dunlop v New Garage [1915] AC 79  Case

summary
Cine Bes Filmcilik v United International
Pictures [2003] EWCA Civ 1669    Case summary
 

Murray v Leisureplay Plc [2005] EWCA Civ 963

Case summary
Euro London Appointments Ltd. v Claessens [2006]
EWCA Civ 385   Case summary

Repudiation
Repudiation is a remedy available for breach of
contract. Repudiation involves bringing an end to
the contract. It is only available for breach of
condition as oppose to breach of warranty:
Bettini v Gye (1876) QBD 183  Case summary

Poussard v Spiers (1876) 1 QBD 410  Case

summary
 
It may also be available for breach of an
innominate term, where the breach substantially
deprives the claimant of the whole benefit of the
contract.

Hong Kong Fir Shipping v Kawasaki Kisen

Kaisha [1962] 2QB 26   Case summary
 
See further here.

Rescission
Rescission is an equitable remedy available at the
discretion of the judge. Rescission seeks to place
the parties back in their pre-contractual position
and thus represents an unraveling of the contract.
Rescission is available where a contract is voidable
as a result of a vitiating factor such
as misrepresentation, undue influence or duress.
The right to rescind may be lost if the claimant
affirms the contract, where a third party acquires
rights in the goods, through lapse of time or
where restitutio in integrum is not possible.

Car & Universal Credit v Caldwell [1964] 2 WLR

600   (Case summary)
 

Long v Lloyd  [1958] 1 WLR 753 (Case summary)

Leaf v International Galleries [1950] 2 KB

86 (Case summary)

Specific performance
Specific performance is an equitable remedy
available at the discretion of the judge. It is an
order by the court requiring one party to perform
their contractual obligation. Whilst it is often said
that contracts are made to be performed and
parties should be held to their contractual
obligations, the courts are often reluctant to order
a party to unwillingly perform the contract and
specific performance is only available in limited
circumstances. In considering whether to grant
specific performance the courts look to whether
damages would be an adequate remedy, the type
of contract and whether equity requires such an
order.
1. Where damages are an inadequate remedy:
If the claimant could adequately be compensated
by an award of damages for the breach of
contract, the courts are unlikely to order specific
performance.
Compare the cases:
Nutbrown v Thornton (1805) 10 Ves 159   Case
summary

Cohen v Roche [1927] 1 KB 169    Case summary

2. Type of contract
Specific performance is most commonly ordered
for contracts for the sale of land
The courts are unlikely to order specific
performance for contracts for personal service. 

3. Equity
Clean hands:
Walters v Morgan (1861) 3 DF & J 718    Case
summary
Lamare v Dixon (1873) LR 6 HL 414  Case
summary

Hardship:
  
Co-op insurance v Argyll Stores [1997] 2 WLR 898
Case summary

Patel v Ali [1984] 1 All ER 978  Case summary

Injunctions

Injunctions are another form of an equitable

remedy available only at the discretion of the
judge. There are three types:

1. Interlocutory or interim (temporary injunction

until a court hearing)
2. Prohibitory (a court order that a party must
not do something)
3. Mandatory (an order that a party must do
something)

There is an overlap between mandatory injunctions and specific

performance which has been recognised by the courts. The courts
will not grant an injunction in circumstances that would in effect be
an order for specific performance where it would not generally be
allowed:

Page One Records v Britton [1968] 1 WLR 157   Case summary

However, this does not prevent the ordering of a prohibitory
injunction which may be an indirect way of ensuring compliance
with contract:

Lumley v Wagner (1852) 42 ER 687   Case summary

The court may sever terms and only order an injunction in respect
of partial obligations:

Warner Bros v Nelson [1937] 1 KB 209    Case summary