Fletcher and Others v Tayleur
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 November 1855 |
| Date | 02 November 1855 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 139 E.R. 973
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 25 L. J. C. P. 65. Commented on, Sapwell v. Bass, [1910] 2 K. B. 492.
fletcher and others v. tayleue. Nov. 2, 1855. [S. C. 25 L. J. C. P. 65; Commented on, Sapwdlv. Bass, [1910], 2 K. B. 492.] In an action for the non-completion of .a ship pursuant to a contract, the jury having given by way of damages the ^difference between the net freight which the vessel probably would have earned had she been ready at the time stipulated, and the amount actually earned by her when delivered some months later, when freights in the particular trade were lower. No.question having been raised at. the trial as to . the principle upon which the damages ought to have been assessed,-the court refused to disturb their verdict.-^-Quaere, as to the proper mode of estimating damages for the breach of a contract for the delivery",-of; a chattel 1 This was an action to recover damages for the breach of a contract for the building of a ship. : ::_::'; : The declaration stated, that, before the commencement of this suit, it was agreed between the plaintiffs anddefendant, thatthe defendant .-should build for the plaintiffs a new iron ship of the same size and dimen-[22]-sions and mpdel as the second iron ship then in course- of construction for Messrs. C. Moore, & Co., and contracted for on the 17th of March ;then.last past, and :in accordance with a certain specification then agreed on, and should deliver the said ship to the-plaintiffs, at-the latest, by the 1st of August, 1854, and that the plaintiffs should pay to the defendant for the said ship the sum of 14,6421, 17s. 6d., less :2J for the hundred, in -the: following, payments, that is to say,-one eighth, when stem and stern-post up,-one eighth,-when framed, -one fourth, when plated up to gunwale, and beams secured,-one fourth, when all decks are laid, and poop, &c. plated and rivetted,-and one fourth, when completely finished and delivered ; Breach, thaty although the plaintiffs made all ^payments, and performed all things on their part by the said agreement to be performed^ yet the defendant.did not deliver the said ship to the plaintiffs finished according to the contract and .specification, no.r did he: deliver the same until long after the 1st of August, 1854; 'whereby the plaintiffs were deprived of and lost great profits and gains which would:otherwise have accrued to them from the use iOf the said ship, and also from the employment, of her.in the Australian trade, in,which trade it was intended by the plaintiffs she should.be employed, and of which the defendant before and at the time ofimaking the said agreement had notice : And the plaintiffs sued the defendant for money had and: received by the defendant for the use of the plaintiffs, and for money found to be due from the defendant to the plaintiffs On accounts stated between them, . ; . The defendant pleaded, .amongst other; pleas, a denial of the contract alleged in the declaration. . The cause was tried before Crawder( J., at the last assizes at Liverpool. The facts which appeared in evidence were as follows:-The plaintiffs were ship-owners at Liverpool. The defendant-was. an iron ship builder [23] carrying on business at Warrington under the style of "The Bank Quay Foundry Company;"...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cullen v O'Meara and Another
...v. WarrenENR 2 Sw. 202. Re Ashton CharityENR 22 Beav. 288. In re the North Shields Old Meeting House 7 W. R. 541. Fletcher v. TayleurENR 17 C. B. 21, 29. Pordage v. ColeENR 1 Wms. Saund. 319, l. Boon v. Eyre 1 H. B. 273, n. Campbell v. Jones 6 Term R. 570. Mattock v. Kinglake 10 A. & E. 50,......
-
Dingle v Hare
...to him. The doctrine thus laid down in Hadluy v. Bajxiidah has been recognised and acted upon in numerous cases : see Fletcher v. Tayleur, 17 C. B. 21 ; S-rneed v. Foord, 28 Law .!., Q. B. 178. [Crowder, .1. And Portnwn v. Middle/on, ante, vol. iv., p. 322.] The jury were satisfied that the......
-
"Gracie" (Owners of the) v "Argentino" (Owners of the). The "Argentino"
...and damages based on the comparative profits of different voyages are too speculative. [Lord HErschell, referred to Fletcher v. Tayleur, 17.C.B.21.] See The Batssy ??st 2 H?? 28; The Col ?? W. Rob. 158; The Cla??ce, S, W. Rob,?? The ??tn, 2 ??; The Risoluto, 48 L. T.?? N,, S, 909; 5 Asp. Ma......
-
Kinlan v Ulster Bank, Ltd
...3 K. B. 110. (1) 14 C. B. 595. (1) I. R. 3 C. L. 621. (2) 1 H. & N. 408. (3) [1909] A. C. 488, per Lord Atkinson, at pp. 495, 496. (4) 17 C. B. 21, per Willes J., at p. 29. (5) L. R. 3 C. P. 499, per Bovill C.J., at p. 506. (6) L. R. 5 Exch. 92. (7) 21 Ch. D. 243, per Jessel M.R., at p. 257......