8 73

uton 73 o tu uo
n i g a a l i n

mahu t o w n g paouuf'efon wi

C v l n a t

73 pniotiau lon ounay

Ceunol hy lhuaLclh o Coutra t ww u
Unohm, Mu only o
entnait Linas huen u enttlso v
utt y muel hntacth
Aonly h o has lgdNi
uel u , Hm

tauus w in hhulhy, uwi d

domnagu
atuolliy
tnngt om u t h dmial, ( w n n
o to huuw) uvun tuy masl u
nhl úi h tonhed,
y t u u l t h o n a hu busu ouF

utrums hy a hu malh
eul une d ihong
y
W e p Y n L o t i s

Cuotol
tnen
nilrhlling
olrligeths
loutnaut s-

amy Ansn
J a not hlun odluenangtd
Cs A m i e l io t
ntitd yo a

Lnssnhas sulhacli to duiclhang 2

 kemeton o timroti'ng
Hu mon
e l e u l n at ,
Ysm
a dua tln
u mut
Cald hy
t u NBer -P
h i vrihin uuto actom

te olounogU
o l o h ait, huni a
u o hinols 7 phohlum
tiut, ha e he alutnmi'nsd uthuA
nou mat
Cacauuu Chruaets 7 lehat hy H deeu=
dot. Vle isor mmahi ng h heatn
Cota et us Jiahl
H
, hit lahu u
Jbmacn Mun
nmnouly lanmetis uwith t i hncalh
dlesidac
lesiaac
i hun ensl ,u
tu
uk nohliwm us
pohlum Rime tmud Doma 1)
Seteud9 t u o n d thnt oAartieuo
olowns s u Mini M o l niut c h hrucl
Hhaucl
lanirat nahn,Hho veo n m o , thu nnt
tt gan hstun aus Hw muut launs -
ata h KauPthu AUdn
uVels diu m n u qcinntunn lepun
Thu tlu pctlml ' Maalun
 3.2.1.1 Remoteness of Damage:
The following statement of Alderson B in Hadley v. Barendale observed:

"Where 1wo parties have mude a contract which one of them has he dn
broken, the damuges
in respect of such breach of contract shoudd
which the other party ought to receive be
such as may fairly and reasonably be considered eilher arISing naturally
i.e.
according to usual course of things, from sueh hreich n coniract itself, or such.

both parties.
may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplalion of at .
the
"

lime they made the contract, as the probable result of the breuch of it.
The above statement of Alderson B is considered to be the basis of the law to

determine whether the damage is the proximate or the remote consequence of the breach of
contract. The provision contained in Section 73 (Para 1) is similar to rule contained in the

above stated judgment in Hadley v. Baxendale.

The ru!e in Hadley v. Baxendale consists of two parts. On the breach ofa contract
such damages can be recovered:-

as may fairly and reasonably be considered arising naturally, i.e., according to the
usual course ofthings from such breach; or
4 a s may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties

at the time they made the contract.

Ii either case, it is necessary that the resulting damage is the probable result of the
breach of contract

(The principle stated in the two branches of the rule is virtually the rule of 'reasonao
foresight he liability of the party making the breach of contract depends on the knowIEu
imputed or actual of the loss likely to arise in case of breach of contract.
 Thefirst branch of the rule allows damages for the loss arising naturally, i.e., in the
suadl course of things from the breach. The parties are deemed to know about the likelihood
uStudl course of

such loss. The second branch of the rule deals with the recovery of more loss which

results from the

results special circumstances of the case Such loss is recoverable, if the possibility
who makes a
of the same was actually within the knowledge of the parties, particularly
hreach of contract, at the time of making of the contract.
12t1 First Branch of the Rule in Hadley v. Baxendale
i Damage arising in the usual course ofthings
Under this branch of the rule, compensation can be claimed for any loss or damage
which does
of things from the breach of contract. If the loss is
one
that arose in usual course

of things but is special loss arising out of special circumstances,

not arise in the usual course

the loss
by the second branch of the rule In that case can
then the situation would be covered
in the contemplation of both the parties at the time of making of
be claimed if the same was

the contract.
Baxendale,
8
it was held that, "it could not be contemplated that the mil
In Hadley v.

course of thungs, by sending the shafi, as the millers might have

would be stopped in the usual
reserve. Moreover, the special circumstances were not communicated by the
another shafi in
Ihe planays were, iherejore, not entitled to recover the loss
Dlaintifs to the defendants.
Faatc af the case:
 hc OjICial KeJerce l0 (

Lii Helay in carriage of goods meant Jor sale

it was held that,h
"1he pluintif
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway,"
In Vilson v.

cold claim only the differeme heween the value of ire cioth beveen the agreed eed date of
.

The r, 1were not

pluniiffs, h0wever
lvery and the actual dae of delivery of the consignnmel.
due lo the caps not havinu
entitled Io recover commpenscalion for the loss of profi.s ng been
"

prepured and sold.

(ii Compensationfor mental anguish

In Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Union of India,"" it has been held hu .

Supreme Court that. "mental anguish cannot be a hud of damages for breach of ordinam.
the Ghaziabad Development Authority
commercial cotract. "n the above mentioned case

had announced through advertisements schemes for allotment of developed plots. There was
unreasonable delay by the Authority in completing scheme for development of plots. I1was

held that, "the purchaser could claim the loss of profit hich occurred ciue 1o delay by the
vendor of he plots and the buyer of plots could not claim any compensation for mental
anguish cuused by the cielay in the performanee ofthe coniruci."

PWhen monetary compeusation is not adequate relief

Sandeep Cemeni (P) Ltd. v. Union of India," the petitioner transported coai
through the respondent railway. 13.320 Metric Tons of coal transported in one of the wagons
was not delivered at the destination. The consignment consisted of 'mineral coal' which was
 available in the market. It was held that monetary
and not easiuy
N ecommodi
ndits
issued
relief in this case and a Writ of Mandamus was
o u l d ,not be adequate
pensatios t
auld
Administration to deliver the goods in kind.
Railway
the

ectng to marry
promise and
of injury to feelings and disappointed
B

of promise to marry, there results

I n

1o
a

a breach
breach

claimed.
damages may be in India
e x e m p l a r y

Court held that, as in

England.
L h a l

Mustak Ahmed," the Gujrat High

v. breach o1
Tn Prema compensatory
does not apply in a

rule of the damages being Miss Prema.

the
normal allowed to the plaintiff.
also
In this case. exemplary
damages were
because the
marry. merely
mise to also held that
promise

the defendant Mustak Ahmed.t was

action ugainst of action illegal

and valid
cause
in tthe
illicit cohabitation
would not make the legal
aiso
nies had
narn

andimmoral

company.
eTaim by
stranded passengers
defendant railway
iv the negligence of the
Hobbs v. L & S.W. Rhy.," due to station. Neither
any nearby
In down at a wrong railway
w e r e set therefore to
and his tamily they had
the plaintif! available to them, and
was
conveyance inconvenience
any
damages for
accommodation
nor
hotel entitled to
substantial

miles in rain. The plaintiff was loss o n

a c c o u n t of

walk several consequential

by the wife and
claim for cold caught the busines
was

His services in
to the family. loss of her
t r e a t m e n t and
for her the rejection
medical e x p e n s e s
incurred
r e m o t e . It may
be noted that
too
considered to be
wife was
Cold to the
rejected. to be justified.
wife does not appear take a person
cold to the carrier does not
of claim for held that ifthe
N.W. Rl:.," it
was
Blanche v. L &
hotel charges and also the
In Le to claim
may also be allowed
destination, the
passenger
can claim
expenses
up to the stranded passenger
conveyance.
A
incurred on the alternative
is urgency in his
expenses unless there
conveyance,
and not a special costly
conveyance.
for ordinary
destination as in the case
of a doctor.
reaching the
and wasted expenditure contract
pre-contract before the
vii Pamages for party to the contract
incurred by one
the expenditure in the
the other party. If it
Sometimes, was

because of breach of
contract by
was entered
into is wasted the pre-contract
contract,
that in the event of breach of
contemplation of the parties
 can be claimed for the same. Such
expenditure would be wasted. compensation
was allowed in Anglia Television Ltd. v. Reed.
compensation
c3-2:1.1.2 Second Branch of the Rule in Hadley v. Baxendale

More loss arising from the special circumstances

If the loss on the breach of a contract does not arise naturally, 1.e., accordine
ording to the
usual course of things but it arises due to some special circumstances, the person makino
the
breach of contract can be made liable for the same provided that those special circumstan
ances
were brought to his knowledge at the time of making the contract. If he had no knowledoe
e of
the special circumstances which result in the particular loss, he cannot be made liable for i.
the
same.

/ In Simpson v. London & North Western Railway Co', it was held that, "since he

defendem-eompany's ugent was having the knowledge ofthe special circumstances that the
goods were being sent for the Newcastle show, they were liable for the loss consequent on the

late arrival of the goods at the destination".

Facts of the case:

The plaintiff, who was a manufacturer, used to send samples of the goods for
exhibition to various agricultural shows. Once he gave some samples of his product to the
agent of the defendant railway company for carriage to Newcastle, for an exhibition. This
fact was within the knowledge of the defendant's agent. The consignment note stated "Must
be at Newcastle Monday certain. " Due to the negligence of the defendant, the goods reached

the destination only after the exhibition was over. The plaintiff brought an action to claim
show.
compensation for the loss of profits owing to the non-arrival of the goods at the
three
In Unionof India w. Hari Mohan Ghosh,"the plaintiff respondent booked
was not
packages of artificial silk ready-made garments through Railway but the consignment
lost but also
delivered at the destination. The plaintiff claimed not only the value of the goods
for the loss of profit.
the loss
It was held that, "the plaintiff was entitled only to the value of the goods, i.e.,
in the usual course of things. He was held not entitled to the loss o
which naturally arose
l0s3
unless he had made known to the Railway when the goods were booked that such
profit,
from the breach ofit.
"

was likely to resul1

4. SUMMARY

When a party having a duty to perform a contract fails to do that, there is said to be a

breach of contract on his part. The breach of contract may be actual, i.e., non-performance of
the contract on he performance, or anticipatory, i.e., before the due date of
due date of

performance has come. Anticipatory breach of contract means the repudiation of a contract
tiaimatar
 the appointed date.
Claim tor compensation is based on the breach
of the contract on the agreed dac oof
fornance or betore the due date of
perfornmance, When one of the parties makes a DrCan
ntraict. the remedies are available to the
other party.
Remedy by way of damages is the most
common remedy available to the
This entitles the
injurc
urtv inj ured party to recover compensation for the loss suliered by D u du

the
breach of contract.
irom the party who causes the breach. Sections 73 to 75 incorporale
the prov ISions in this regard.

When the njured party has

performed a part of his obligation under the contract betoree
the breach of cotract has occurred, under this remedy he is entitled to recover the value of

hat he hasdone
Sometimes the instead
a party to contract
of
recovering damages for the breach of
tract may have recourse to the alternative remedy of specific performance of the contract,
r

an injunction restraining he other party from making a breach of the contract. Provisions
regarding these remedies are contained in the Specific Relief Aet, 1963.