Remedies

Introduction

Remedies sit at the **end of the problem-solving chain**: once breach and loss are established, the claimant must select an appropriate remedy and quantify recovery. **Damages** remain the primary common-law remedy, available **as of right**; equitable remedies (**specific performance** and **injunctions**) are **discretionary** and available only where damages would be inadequate. This chapter covers the **compensatory principle** (*Robinson v Harman*), the **three measures of loss**, **difference in value v cost of cure** (*Ruxley v Forsyth*), **loss of a chance**, **non-pecuniary loss**, **negotiating damages** after *Morris-Garner*, the **modern penalty test** (*Cavendish / ParkingEye*), **specific performance**, **injunctions**, the **duty to mitigate**, **indemnities and guarantees**, and the **consumer remedies hierarchy** under the **Consumer Rights Act 2015**.

Assessment focus

The SRA SQE1 FLK1 specification requires candidates to know the following contractual remedies: **damages** (including liquidated sums and penalties); **specific performance**; **injunctions**; the **duty to mitigate**; and **indemnities and guarantees**. For SQE1 you must know (i) the **compensatory principle** in *Robinson v Harman* (1848) and the **three measures of loss** (expectation, reliance, restitutionary); (ii) when courts award **cost of cure** rather than **difference in value** (*Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth* [1996] AC 344); (iii) the **modern penalty test** (*Cavendish Square v Makdessi*; *ParkingEye v Beavis* [2015] UKSC 67) and its displacement of the old *Dunlop* test; (iv) **negotiating damages** after *Morris-Garner v One Step* [2018] UKSC 20; (v) when **non-pecuniary loss** is recoverable (*Jarvis v Swans Tours*; *Farley v Skinner*); (vi) **loss of a chance** (*Chaplin v Hicks*); (vii) the requirements and limits of **specific performance** and **injunctions**, including *American Cyanamid*; (viii) the **duty to mitigate** (*British Westinghouse v Underground Electric Railways*) and its **three branches**; (ix) the distinction between **indemnities and guarantees** and the **s.4 Statute of Frauds 1677** writing requirement; and (x) the **consumer remedies hierarchy** under Part 1 of the **CRA 2015**. Expect MCQs requiring you to **select the measure of loss**, **apply the penalty test** on live facts, or identify whether **cost of cure or difference in value** is appropriate.

Study tips

1) Memorise the **compensatory principle**: *Robinson v Harman* — put the claimant, so far as money can, in the position **as if the contract had been performed** (the **expectation** measure). 2) Master the **four-step damages MCQ method**: (i) identify the measure; (ii) within expectation, choose **difference in value v cost of cure** using *Ruxley*'s **intention** and **proportionality** tests; (iii) check for **non-pecuniary loss** (*Addis* bar + *Jarvis/Farley* exceptions); (iv) for a lost contingent benefit, use **loss of a chance** (*Chaplin v Hicks*: probability × value). 3) Learn the **modern penalty test** as a two-part question: (a) is there a **legitimate interest** beyond mere compensation? (b) is the detriment **proportionate** to it? — the old *Dunlop* 'genuine pre-estimate' test is **superseded**. 4) Remember equitable remedies are **discretionary**: specific performance is refused for **personal service**, where **constant supervision** is needed (*Argyll Stores*), and on **laches/mutuality** grounds. 5) The **three branches of mitigation** (*British Westinghouse*): avoidable loss irrecoverable; avoided loss irrecoverable; reasonable mitigation costs recoverable. 6) **Guarantee** (secondary, co-extensive, **s.4 writing**) v **indemnity** (primary, stands alone, **no s.4**). 7) For consumers, run the **CRA 2015 three-tier hierarchy** (short-term reject → repair/replacement → price reduction/final reject) **before** common-law damages.