CONDITIONS AND WARRANTIES

Poussard v Spiers (1876) 1 QBD 410

Poussard was engaged to appear in an operetta from the start of
its London run for three months. The plaintiff fell ill and the
producers were forced to engage a substitute. A week later
Poussard recovered and offered to take her place, but the
defendants refused to take her back.
The court held that the defendant's refusal was justified and that they were not
liable in damages. What chiefly influenced the court was that Poussard's illness
was a serious one of uncertain duration and the defendants could not put off the
opening night until she recovered. The obligation to perform from the first night
was a condition of the contract. Failure to carry out this term entitled the
producers to repudiate Poussard's contract.

Sherwin v perry
The Perry Company, Appellee here, is in the manufacturing business wherein it
makes diving boards, plastic furniture, water skis, shopwork and millwork. It
also has income from investments that have been placed within its corporate
structure. Its principal field, however, is the manufacture of diving boards which
constitutes 65% of its entire business and it is the second largest diving board
manufacturer in the United States.
The Appellant here is the Sherwin-Williams Company which furnished
Appellee paint for its diving boards and, allegedly, some bad advice in the use
thereof. The suit was for damages for loss caused from defective diving boards
and the resulting loss of goodwill. Based upon jury answers to special issues,
the court entered judgment against Appellant for $183,607.27.
We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the cause for trial
consistent with this opinion.
A summary of Appellee's case is as follows: In 1964 it produced 9,538 diving
boards. In finishing these boards, Appellee used a polyester coating with sand
sprinkled in the second coat on the topside for a non-slip tread. 382 of these
boards
[424 S.W.2d 942]
were returned under customer warranties for various defects mostly relating to
finish failures resulting in a 4.01% return rate. That with its production
procedure standardized, if Appellee had used the polyester finish again for its
1965 diving boards, approximately a 4% return rate could have been expected.

Breach of Contract The Limited Horizon of Damages Out of the Box Pte
Ltd v Wanin Industries Pte Ltd
26 February 2013
Cassandra Ow
Tweet this Share on LinkedIn Share on Google +
An important aspect that a Court needs to consider in every case that involves a
breach of contract is the extent of damages to be awarded.
However the obligation to pay damages is not an unlimited liability. Although
on the face of it, a liability to pay damages arises once the threshold of showing
that the damages are causally connected to the breach has been crossed, there
are some limits to the extent of such liability.
In the recent case of Out of the Box Pte Ltd v Wanin Industries Pte Ltd [2013]
SGCA 15, the Singapore Court of Appeal examined the limits of such liability
as well as the circumstances to be considered in determining the damages to be
awarded.
Brief facts
Sometime in early 2007, the appellant company, Out of the Box Pte Ltd
(OOTB) conceptualised and developed a new sports drink, 18 for Life (18).
On 11 June 2008, OOTB entered into a Contract Manufacturing Agreement (the
Contract) with the respondent company, Wanin Industries Pte Ltd (WI). The
Contract was a relatively simple document and there was nothing in the
Contract that would have given WI any indication or hint of OOTBs plans for
18.

Sometime in 2008, a shipment of 18 supplied by WI changed colour. On
inspection, the bottled drink was also found to be contaminated with insects. As
a result, OOTB had to recall all stock of 18 from the market. OOTB also had to
abandon its marketing campaign and discontinue the planned venture altogether.
On 22 April 2009, OOTB commenced Suit No 317 of 2009 against WI for
breach of the Contract. On 9 September 2009, the High Court granted summary
judgment in favour of OOTB and ordered WI to pay damages to be assessed. At
the assessment of damages, the Assistant Registrar (the AR) assessed OOTBs
damages in the sum of $655,280.70. WI appealed and OOTB cross appealed
against the ARs decision.

The net result of the appeal was a reduction of the ARs award to $329,254.30.
OOTB appealed against the decision of the High Court Judge to award only
nominal damages in relation to the two largest components of OOTBs claims.
This was the sole issue that was before the Court of Appeal.


In determining the extent of damages to be awarded in this case, the Court of
Appeal held that it is important to segregate the question of the interpretation of
the contract from the question of remoteness. In order to ascertain whether the
contract breaker should be held liable to pay the particular damages claimed, the
Court should look at whether the contract breaker had such knowledge of the
facts that bore upon that risk as to render it just that he be held liable to pay such
damages.


Ram Kumar Agarwala vs Lakshmi Narayan Agarwala And Ors. on 6 June,
1946

1. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be stated briefly. The plaintiffs are
the owners of a joint business in Bogra town. Defendant 1 is the Sri Oudh Rice
and Oil Mills, and the other defendants are said to be the owners of the Mills.
The Mills manufacture mustard oil. The plaintiffs were the agents of the Mills
for the sale of mustard oil. The plaintiffs ordered 400 tins of mustard oil from
the mills for supplying to one Bholaram Jesraj. When the oil arrived at Bogra,
the plaintiffs took delivery. Immediately thereafter the Sanitary Inspector of the
local Municipality, seized the oil and sent samples to the Chemical Examiner
for report. Thereafter Laksmi Narayan Agarwala. plaintiff 1, was prosecuted on
a charge of being in possession of adulterated mustard oil, and was convicted
and sentenced to undergo 6 weeks imprisonment and to pay a fine. On appeal
the conviction was upheld but the sentence was reduced to a fine of Rs. 100
only.
2. Plaintiffs sued the defendants for damages, claiming Rs. 1302-9-9 on account
of the costs incurred in the criminal case, Rs. 197-6-3 for mental suffering due
to the criminal case, and Rs. 1500 for loss in business and reputation.