According to contract law, can the injured party claim damages for Essay

According to contract law, can the injured party claim damages for every loss which is caused by a breach of contract Discuss, with reference to case law - Essay Example The victim has choices. The victim may avow the agreement or accept the repudiatory breach and consider the agreement as at an end. For contracts apart from sale of goods contracts, an individual, having full breach knowledge, is perceived to affirm the contract where he decides to go on with it in any case (Png, & Stanford University, p342). The obligation to repudiate in such a scenario is finally mislaid. The responsible individual may, of course, still consider bringing an act in damages for the breach and repudiate the contract for all breaches in future. Mitigation: the party that brings the claim cannot in any way be compensated for any loss arising from his part which he may have overcome by taking the necessary actions. This is termed as the duty to mitigate. Two limbs exists in duty to mitigate which usually arise after the breach has taken place: The party complaining about contract breach should take sensible steps in order to minimize her loss; the expenses incurred in taking such steps may also be compensated, and the complainant must not take unrealistic steps that increases the amount of loss. Causation; the complainant about contract breach must prove on a scale of probabilities that the loss was as result of the breach. In most occasions, the court will often first look at what would have occurred ‘but for’ the breach. If this technique will not bare fruits in terms of having certain finding, the court will be left with the option to consider ‘lost chance’ methodology which considers any chances for what may have taken place. Remoteness; whichever loss that has occurred should not be too remote the prove recovery process to be futile. This means that damages must arise in accordance to normal happenings arising from contract breach itself or may sensibly be ought to have been in the contemplation of the involved parties when the contract was made. Hadley v