| Remoteness |
Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch. 34. |
面粉磨坊某磨軸斷了需修理，負責方延遲安排修理，磨坊要求賠償因停工之利潤損失，官判斷軸不成理由，因一般磨坊應有後備軸 |
| Defendant knowledge |
Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd [1949] 2 KB 528 |
洗衣店購置 boiler，boiler遲送達，官判供應方早知其用途及遲送會帶來洗衣店生意虧損故需承擔相關補償，但不應包括洗衣店因錯失 lucrative contract with gov 所致之預見利潤，因供應方事前對此 lucrative contract並不知曉 |
| Remoteness test – (1) comparison between Contract Law and Tort of Negligence; (2) Economic/ Physical Distinction |
Koufos v C Czarnikow Ltd. The Heron II [1969] 1 A.C. 350; [1967] 3 All E.R. 686; [1967] 3 W.L.R. 1491 |
船期延誤令糖較原訂日期晚了送達目的地，糖價抵達時價格較原訂日期跌致利潤受損 |
| Mental distress :cannot claim via Contract Law (Common Law) |
Addis v Gramophone Co. Ltd. [1909] A.C. 488. |
員工被錯誤解僱，未能就其精神上或名譽上的損失而循合約法索償 |
| Manner of Dismissal |
Johnson v Unisys [2001] IRLR 279 |
員工被不公解僱，如超越相關法例規限，不能以 manner of dismissal作索償理由 |
| Damages for disappointment (holiday case) |
Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd. [1973] Q.B. 233
|
滑雪假期不對版，可索取 damages for disappointment |
| Damages for disappointment (holiday case) |
Jackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd. [1975] 3 All E.R. 92. |
斯里蘭卡假期不對版，丈夫為 contract maker 可 sue，但 damages for reduced value of holiday and disappointment 可 cover其同行妻子及兒子 |
| Damages for disappointment (newly bought flat with aircraft noise) |
Farley v Skinner [2001] 4 All E.R. 801. HL [2001] |
買樓發現非賣方所述沒有飛機噪音，即使 peace of mind 非 sole purpose，也可 recover damages for difference in value 及 disappointment |
| Damages measurement – loss of bargain |
Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Ex Rep 850 |
甲向乙租出物業，其後甲反口不租，再其後發現原來甲並無該物業持有人，官判乙可索償金額包合因甲違約導致之損失，包括其消費如律師費及相關租住安排，亦包括 loss of bargain (opportunity cost) |
| Loss of Bargain – Difference in Value instead of Cost of Cure (plus consumer surplus) |
Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd. v Forsyth [1995] 3 All E.R. 268 |
游泳池不符原要求深度，官判賠償以 difference in value 而非 cost of cure 計算，但加補 consumer surplus (loss of amenity damages) |
| Loss of a chance : speculative damages |
Chaplin v Hicks [1911] 2 K.B. 786. |
甲被選美主辦機構忘記通知面試，官判可索取 loss of chance 賠償 |
| Reliance loss : include expenses before and after the contract is made |
Anglia Television Ltd. v Reed [1972] 1 Q.B. 60. |
明星臨時取消出席節目，官判電視台可以 reliance loss 索償，包括因 rely on 該明星之承諾演出而作簽約前及後之準備所引致之支出 |
| Duty to mitigate loss: |
GOLDEN FABRIC LTD. v. HIGH FASHION GARMENT CO. LTD. [2001] 2 HKLRD 511 |
賣布方當貨到目的地倉以 delivery order 要求付款，合約付款形式註明為 COD（cash on delivery），買方要求耍待收到實物才付，官判 delivery 可以是physical 或 symbolic，故 delivery order 屬有效文件要求買方付款 |
| Relevant date for assessing damages : date of breach unless unjust |
Johnson v Agnew [1979] 1 All E.R. 883 |
Johnson 拖欠按揭貨款，Agnew 同意買下 Johnson之農埸，其價足令 Johnson 償還欠下之貸款，後Angew 反口不買，法庭頒 Specific Performance Order 要 Agnew 買，但發該頒令前銀行已將有關物業出售第三方而出售價未能足夠抵償Johnson 之拖欠，Johnson 要Agnew 償還其原同意之買入農埸之金額與銀行售出物業價之差額，官判有效 |
| Relevant date for assessing damages : date of breach unless unjust |
Kwok Ka v Mak Siu-hing & Anor [1999] 2 HKC 410). |
D1反口不售物業予 P，官判 damage 以原訂成交日 completion date 估值計賠償較公平，雖一般會以違約日估值，但由於違約日（早於原定成交日）之樓價較成交日樓價低很多，以違約日計會對 P不公平 |
| Liquidated damage vs penalty |
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. v New Garage & Motor Co. Ltd. [1915] A.C. 79 |
甲售車軚予乙註明轉售價不得低於指定下限，否則乙需按合約列明賠償指定計算之金額（liquidated damage），其後發生乙以低於下限之售價轉售，法庭就判斷該賠僨金額之條款屬 liquidated damage還是 penalty作出定義 |
| Liquidated damage clause |
Luen Yick Co. v Tang Man Kee Machinery Workshop [1958] HKLR 405. |
合約有條款列明違約方如違約的指定賠償金額計算方法，官判需按照該條款，拒絕原告索取超於該計算之賠償 |
| Liquidated damage vs penalty – penalty |
Ford Motor Co (England) Ltd v Armstrong 1915 |
Ford Motor Co (England) Ltd v Armstrong 1915 （不同 breach condition 都是同一賠償額，官判非 genuine pre-estimate of loss，而是penalty）
|
| Deposit |
Polyset Ltd v Panhandat Ltd [2002] 3 HKLRD 319 |
物業買賣，涉及超高訂金 (deposit) ，官解釋 liquidated damages clause 與 deposit 之分別 |
| Specific Performance |
Cavendish Square Holding EV v Makdessi [2015] UKSC 67 |
|
| Specific Performance – not granted as damages are adequate |
Cohen v Roche [1927] 1 KB 169 |
拍賣單張列示私人椅子，買家堅持，官判其無 special value of interest故不頒 specific performance |
| Specific Performance –granted as damages are 久not adequate |
Beswick v Beswick [1968] AC 58 |
妻成功以遺產管理人身份索取 specific performance order |
| Specific Performance – need for court supervision |
Ryan v Mutual Tontine Westminster Chambers Association [1893] 1 Ch 116 |
門房經常缺席看守房子，官不頒 specific performance 因要強制該門房責任需法庭監管其有否再行隨時缺席(or supervise if he is ‘ constantly in attendance’) ，這種監管不可行，故頒了 specific performance order 會變得沒有意思 |
| Specific Performance – personal service |
Hill v CA Parsons & Co Ltd [1972] Ch 305 |
公司因工會壓力而非其工作表現或行為解僱員工，員工成功申請 specific performance order |
| Specific Performance – need to mutuality |
Lifton Investment Ltd v Pang Chor Ying Annie [1992] 2 HKC 57. |
A 售物業予 B 註明包電器等但在買賣合約成交前移走 |
| Specific Performance – hardship |
Denne v Light (1875) 8 De GM & G 774 |
甲向乙購入耕地，但合約無列明如何進入該地，而即使頒下 specific performance order，如該地是被屬於其他人的耕地包圍，那頒下該 specific performance order 只會為 defendant 構成 hardship |
| Specific Performance – hardship |
Patel v Ali [1984] Ch 283 |
D 簽賣屋協議後患癌，官認為頒 specific performance order 會為其帶來 hardship，故改判 damage |
| Specific Performance – claimant must have acted equitably |
Walters v Morgan (1861) 3 DF & J 718 |
P 明知 D 不知道礦埸市價較其提出之租價為高但與 D 達成租約，後 D 發現租價過低而反悔，P claim specific performance，官否決，因 P 沒有公平地與 D 進行該租約協議 |
| Injunction – granted |
Warner Bros Pictures Inc v Nelson [1937] 1 KB 209 |
明星與華納兄弟影業公司簽約只拍華納電影，其後該明星與第三者影業公司拍片，華納成功申請禁制令 |
| Injunction – not granted |
Page One Records Ltd v Britton [1968] 1 WLR 157 |
樂隊與經理人簽約不可與其他經理人另行簽約，其後樂隊以經理人有違約行為而提出審訴及要求終止合約，經理人申請禁制令禁止樂隊在審訊期間不得另覓經理人，法庭否決頒禁制令，因那會是涉及 specific performance of a contract for personal services |
| Injunction – personal services not involving property |
Rigby v Connol (1880) 4 Ch D 482 |
帽技工加入工會但違反工會規則而被工會開除會籍，官判那屬 personal services而且不涉及知識產權，故不會介入頒令禁止工會開除會籍 |