Chetwin, M (2011) Comparative analysis of some aspects of assessment of damages for contractual breaches in England and Wales, Australia and New Zealand. International Journal of Law in the Built Environment, 3(2), pp. 113-125. ISSN 1756-1450
Abstract
Purpose – The paper aims to examine the judicial approach to some aspects of contract damages in England and Wales, Australia and New Zealand. Design/methodology/approach – The paper is an analysis of judgments of the three jurisdictions and academic commentary. Findings – Generally, there is uniformity in the assessment of damages in the jurisdictions discussed as is illustrated with liquidated damages and the adherence to the judgment of the House of Lords. However, the same adherence is not evident in the case of lower court judgments in the controversial area of “consequential loss”. Although not a remedy, it is an integral part of the assessment of damages process when included in exception clauses. Originality/value – The research highlights the need for knowledge of the legal issues to ensure that the contract covers what is intended so that a party is not without a remedy when the contract fails.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Australia; comparative damages issues; consequential loss; damages; England; liquidated; New Zealand; Wales |
| Index terms: | Australia, judgment, New Zealand, England, legal issue, Wales, consequential loss, methodology, liquidated damages, comparative analysis, jurisdiction, damages |
| Subjects: | Geography, contractual remedy, research methods, liability law, dispute resolution, legal systems, data analysis and analytics |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Research Practice, Legal Issues, Contract Administration |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here