Contract: second principle

-assuming the first requirement has been fulfilled, kena prove loss.

Ex: rm 25k loss of profit, so plaintiff kena prove the actual loss.

P kena provide evidences, kena provide doc evidences under EA 1950.

-how to quantify loss of profit, how to prove it.

Methods of measuring actual loss: (kena choose which method to calculate the loss, based on
circumstances)

1-deminuition in value

Situation whereby there is partial performance made by d, and P dapat partial benefit. Cth: expected
profit is rm5ok, tpi bcs of partial performance by d, p dapat rm25k. so deminuition profit : expected
profit – partial profit you obtained= actual loss. Loss of profit would be rm 25k. if claim full total, susah
nak prod doc evidences to prove the claim. In the event if you suffered rm 25k, so yang ni kne gather
doc evidences. Kena prove semua doc of evidences to when total up dapat rm25k.

Cth lain: P entered SOGA, S supposed to deliver 20kg of rambutans. Seller didn’t deliver the rambutans
to P. so, the delay would affect the contract made between P and third party. If the seller did deliver the
rambutan on time, the price marketed would be different. If seller deliver on time, rambutan price
would be rm 7, tapi bcs of seller delay, the rambutan price drop to rm 4. So the loss would be rm7)price
marketed)’-rm 4(price bcs of the delay)=rm 3. Rm3 is the loss of profit suffered by P. so P’s actual loss
would be rm 3x20=rm600.

2-P took steps to mitigate his loss. To do that, P incurred cost.

The cost=cost of cure, in which its to put P in position as if the contract has been performed. The cost of
cure may be included in expectation loss suffered by Plaintiff. What kind of docs to tendered; contract
entered with another third party, receipt of payment, anything will do to act as evidence to prove cost
of cure. Cost of cure is not same like wasted expenditure.

3-in the event if there is BOC, but the P did not suffer any expectation or reliance loss. (P claimed that he
suffered but court decides no). so, to compensate, court will award loss in ammuity(?). Case: ruxley v,
contract between houseowner and contractor, contractor failed to build the pool like what houseowner
wanted. Houseowner refused to pay the contract. But the houseowner claims that he suffered
expectation loss, as the pool was built not in accordance with the pool he wanted. Houseowner pulak
dia mitigate the loss by hiring other contractor to built the pool. The court held that the mitigation is not
reasonable. Nanti baca balik…..

Loss of ammuity=example of non-pecuniary loss. Bila p failed to prove actual loss, cost of cure method,
or diminution loss, P can prove other loss which is on loss of enjoyment value.

PROVING EXPECTATION LOSS IN WASTED EXPENDITURE

WASTED EXPENDITURE=expenses P incurred in fulfilling the performance of the contract, yet D did not
pay p for the costs p incurred for the contract.

Wasted expenditure=loss suffered, or also known as reliance loss. Cth: You incurred expenses for buying
raw materials, so receipt of the transaction tu can be used to prove wasted expenditure.

1)bila nak prove wasted expenditure, guna principle of election(?).

Bila ada boc by d, p claimed he suffer wasted expenditure and future loss of profits. Due to the existence
of this principle, P is prevented from claiming both. Cth: expectation loss, rm20k. rm20k will include cost
of purchasing raw materials. If P can claim both then it would make P richer, therefore this principle
prevent P to do double claim. If P suffered both, P has to choose which one that he wanted to claim,
either wasted expenditure or loss of expected profit. Therefore, usually people would claim for expected
actual loss, instead of wasted expenditure as wasted expenditure usually included in expected loss.

But, if P lack of evidences to prove expected loss of profit, p can claim wasted expenditure bcs to prove
WE is easier compared to the other. So no need to prove principle of election.

2-bila nak claim WE, bila P suffer WE, when P himself make a bad decision or bad bargain. More or less
similar with contributory negligence.

What does it mean? Can refer to case C&P v Middleton(baca case). In this case, ada term that “fixtures
will not be removed…”. Middleton sued for BOC…. Cost of improvement tu middleton claim under
wasted expenditure. Court rejected on that claim, on basis is that, if middleton understand the terms of
the contract, such WE will not happen. The wasted expenditure incurred by P was bcs of his bad decision
during the performance of the contract.

3-case angler tv v reid. Question whether P can claim WE that he incurred before he entered into the
contract with D? angler tv claimed for wasted expenditure, here no principle of election bcs P suffer
reliance loss only. P claimed for WE they incurred before he entered into contract with reid such as P
claimed for director’s fees, stage fees etc. these fees have to be settled first before they can look for
actors, in the entertainment industry. Court allow these claims for we even before P entered into
contract with D. to do so, the concept is similar like the principle of remoteness. TENGOK WORDING OF
JUDGEMENT!!!!!!!!!!! MR reid is expected to have knowledge in respect of the entertainment industry
works, the usual practice or course of business in entertainment industry. Must know and bear in mind
the principle of remoteness.

Process of proving WE must be based on P’s own records such as receipts.

Case: mc ray v cdc

If p suffered reliance loss, then don’t discuss on principle of election. If suffer both, baru include.

If p suffered we bcs of bad bargain, then baru discuss pasal case middleton.

If p suffered loss after entered into contract with D, then don’t have to discuss on case television tu.

Discuss apa yang necessary.

Principle of remoteness and proving actual loss selalu keluar exam!!!!!!!!!!!!!