Expectation damages are damages recoverable from a breach of contract by the non-breaching party. An award of expectation damages protects the injured party's interest in realising the value of the expectancy that was created by the promise of the other party. Thus, the impact of the breach on the promisee is to be effectively "undone" with the award of expectation damages.[1]
The purpose of expectation damages is to put the non-breaching party in the position it would have occupied had the contract been fulfilled.[2] Expectation damages can be contrasted to reliance damages and restitution damages, which are remedies that address other types of interests of parties involved in enforceable promises.[3]
The default for expectation damages are monetary damages which are subject to limitations or exceptions (see below)
Expectation damages are measured by the diminution in value, coupled with consequential and incidental damages.[4]
In Robinson v Harman, B Parke of the Exchequer Court established that under the rule of common law as per Hopkins v. Grazebrook, the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages, to what means money can, as if the contract had been performed.[5] B Alderson agreed, assessing that according to the general rule of law if a contract is made and an individual breaches that contract, the whole damage sustained to the innocent party must be paid.[6] Thus, expectation damages were established under one of the guiding common law principles in awarding damages restitutio in integrum (restoration to original condition).[4] After this case expectation damages as a form of compensatory damages became the norm in apportioning damages in breach of contract cases.[7][8]
In expectation damages, the measure of damages is the difference between what was given and what was promised, along with consequential and incidental expenses minus any payments received from the breaching party and any costs saved as a result of the breach.[9] The proper amount is that which gives the non-breaching party the "benefit of the bargain." However, it is important to note that expectation damages are not punitive; its theoretical purpose is to place the injured, non-breaching party in the same position that they would have occupied had there been full performance of the contract.[10] In other words, it is the amount that makes the injured party indifferent to the breach.
Examples:
The reason for expectation damages being the norm is that it is widely proven that the size of the recovery of expectation damages is often similar to that of reliance damages but is easier to prove than reliance damages.[12][13] In Australia, a party usually only claims reliance damages in the case that expectation damages are deemed to be unable to be proven. This is because expectation damages include profit whereas reliance damages are just wasted expenditure standardly so reliance damages are rarely greater than expectation damages.[14]
Lokasi Pengunjung: 13.58.26.236