Punitive damages are not provided for by law. The judge or jury may, at its discretion, award such amount as it deems necessary to redress the harm or deter similar conduct in the future. This means that a richer person can be subject to much heavier punitive damages than a poorer person. However, the judge may, in all cases, waive (reduce) some or all of the punitive damages if he considers it excessive. An expected interestThe interest of a party in a breach of contract, to obtain the benefit of the arrangement by putting him in as good a position as it would have been if there had been no breach. is the advantage for which the promisor has negotiated, and the remedy is to put him in as good a position as he would have been in if the contract had been performed. Legitimate interest compensation for the non-offending party resulting from reliance on the offending party`s performance promise. is the loss caused by relying on the contract and taking action consistent with the expectation that the other party will honour it; The remedy is a refund that puts the promise back in its position before the conclusion of the contract. The interest of the non-offending party to be brought back to the situation in which it would have found itself if the promises had never been made. Where this is not possible, restitution will eliminate any unjust enrichment. is what returns to the promise any advantage he has granted to the promisor. These interests do not dictate the result according to a rigid formula; The circumstances and nature of the contract will, as usual, play a major role.
But in general, the specific benefit is a legal remedy that deals with expected interest, monetary damages for all three interests and, not surprisingly, restitution deals with repayment interest. Admittedly, it is the general rule that the parties are free to conclude any type of contract they want, as long as it is not illegal or unscrupulous. The inclusion of a penalty clause in the contract – already mentioned – is a means by which the parties can reach an agreement that affects the damages. But beyond that, as we saw in Chapter 12 “Legality”, it is very common for one party to limit its liability, or for one party to agree that it will seek only limited remedies against the other in the event of a breach. Such consensual restrictions on the availability of remedies are generally acceptable as long as they are visible, negotiated and not unscrupulous. In consumer transactions, courts are more likely to be unscrupulous when it comes to limiting contractually agreed remedies than in commercial transactions, and the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) imposes other restrictions on contractual remedies. The distinction between judicial and equitable remedies originally arose because the courts only had the power to grant remedies, while the courts provided equitable remedies to exercise justice in situations where money would not be a sufficient remedy. The courts and the fair courts have merged, but the distinction still has some importance, because in a number of courts a jury trial is granted or denied, depending on whether the remedy sought is legal or fair. If an appeal is filed, the plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial, but this is not the case if equitable relief is sought. Specific performance: This is when the court obliges the offending party to provide the service or deliver the goods they have promised in the contract. This is generally reserved for cases where the goods or services are unique and no other remedy is sufficient. If a party is a victim of fraud, it must act expeditiously to repeal the common law or lose its right and its remedy will be limited to tortious damages.
(This issue is discussed in more detail in Section 16.5.7 “Choice of Solutions.”) An equitable remedy is when the court orders someone to do something. This can also be called an “injunction”. In the event of a breach of contract, it may look like this: The assessment of the return interest can be problematic. Courts have considerable discretion in deciding either the cost of hiring another person to perform the work performed by the non-infringing party (usually the market price of the service) or the value added to the aggrieved party`s property as a result of the plaintiff`s performance. Calhoun, the contractor, agreed to build ten fences around Arlene`s area at a market price of $25,000. After building three, Calhoun provided services that would cost $7,500 in market value. Let us assume that it increases the value of the Arlene site by $8,000. If Arlene resigns, there are two criteria for Calhoun`s restitution interest: $8,000, the value by which the property was improved, or $7,500, the amount it would have cost Arlene to hire someone else to do the job.
The measure used depends on who terminated the contract and why. In some cases, improved valuation of goods or assets could result in an award that far exceeds the market price for the service. In such cases, the smallest measure is used. For a physician performing life-saving surgeries on a patient, reimbursement would only recover the market value of medical services – not the monetary value of the patient`s life. – 2. If the breach is completed or ongoing, remedies for compensation are either specific or in the form of damages. These are summaries before justices of the peace or others; or formally, either by action or action in court or in equity, or in the courts of the Admiralty. An example of summary proceedings is how possession is recovered through a petition to judges against forced entry and detention, if the law permits trial. Formal proceedings are initiated when certain rights have been violated. If the infringement infringes a statutory right, the remedy is generally to bring an action in court; But if it is a just right, or if it can be better reviewed by a fair court,” then the remedy is through Bill.
The purpose of the restitution application is to restore the claimant to the position he held before the violation of his rights. It is normally measured by the profits of the defendant and not by the losses of the plaintiff, in order to prevent the defendant from being unjustly enriched by the injustice.
