Mitigation of Loss CASES
In English law, mitigation of loss is a principle requiring a claimant to take reasonable steps to minimise the damages suffered after a breach of contract or tortious wrong. Losses that could reasonably have been avoided are generally not recoverable.
Definition and Principles
Mitigation does not impose a strict duty but sets limits on recoverable damages. The law expects claimants to act reasonably, without demanding extraordinary measures or undue sacrifice.
Requirements for Establishing
- Reasonableness: The claimant must take steps that an ordinary prudent person would consider sensible.
- Proportionality: Mitigation efforts should not involve excessive risk or cost.
- Causation: Losses directly attributable to a failure to mitigate may be irrecoverable.
- Assessment: Courts evaluate mitigation objectively, considering circumstances at the time of the breach.
Practical Applications
Examples include a seller reselling goods after a buyer’s refusal to accept them, or an employee seeking alternative work after wrongful dismissal. Reasonable action limits the damages the defendant must pay.
Importance
Mitigation of loss promotes fairness by preventing claimants from recovering avoidable damages. It ensures compensation reflects genuine loss while discouraging wasteful or unreasonable conduct.
Home » Mitigation of Loss
Mr Lagden's parked car was damaged by Mrs O'Connor's negligent driving. Being impecunious, he could not afford spot rate car hire and used a credit hire company instead. The House of Lords held that impecunious claimants can recover the full cost of credit hire services, departing from The Liesbosch principle...
An advertising company continued to display unwanted advertisements after the customer repudiated the contract on the same day it was signed. The House of Lords held (3-2) that the innocent party could elect to perform the contract and claim the contract price rather than accept repudiation and sue for damages....
Wertheim contracted to purchase 3,000 tons of wood pulp from Chicoutimi Pulp Company for delivery between September and November 1900. Delivery was delayed until June 1901. The Privy Council held that damages for late delivery should reflect actual loss sustained, not the theoretical market price difference, as Wertheim had resold...
A courier was hired in April 1852 to commence employment on 1st June 1852. In May, the employer repudiated the contract. The court held the courier could sue immediately for breach without waiting until the performance date. This landmark case established the doctrine of anticipatory breach of contract. Facts In...
A couple purchased a motor repair business relying on their solicitors' negligent advice that a right of way existed. When the access was blocked, their business failed. The court assessed damages on a 'no-transaction' basis, awarding expenditure less recoveries, but disallowed damages for mental distress in commercial contracts. Facts Mr...
A heat exchanger exploded at Beoco's factory due to the plaintiff's own negligence in failing to properly test repairs before resuming operations. Though the first defendant breached warranty in supplying defective equipment, the plaintiff could not recover hypothetical lost profits for repairs never carried out due to the supervening explosion...
Facts The appellants, Waterlow & Sons Ltd, were a firm of printers who held a contract with the respondent, the Bank of Portugal, for the exclusive printing of 500-escudo banknotes. A criminal mastermind, Marang, pretending to be an authorised agent of the Bank, deceived Waterlow into printing 580,000 additional banknotes...