Hasell v Bagot, Shakes and Lewis, Ltd [1911] HCA 62

Hasell v Bagot, Shakes and Lewis, Ltd [1911] HCA 62

The proper measure of damages was the difference between the contract price and the actual price reasonably paid by the respondents to procure similar goods (3,000 tons) from an Australian importer after the appellant's breach, as the respondents acted reasonably and there was no available local market.

Parties
Appellant, Plaintiff: Arthur Henry Hasell; Respondent, Defendant: Bagot, Shakes & Lewis Ltd.; Respondent, Defendant: Thomas Grose and Henry Thomas, trading as William Thomas & Co.
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 November 1911
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court of Australia—appeal From Supreme Court of South Australia
Outcome
appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Measure of Damages, Breach of Contract, Mitigation of Loss, Sale of Goods
Contract Law Measure of Damages Breach of Contract Mitigation of Loss Sale of Goods

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arthur Henry Hasell

Appellant, Plaintiff

Bagot, Shakes & Lewis Ltd.

Respondent, Defendant

Thomas Grose and Henry Thomas, trading as William Thomas & Co.

Respondent, Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court of Australia—appeal From Supreme Court of South Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Correct measure of damages for breach of contract for sale of goods where no local market exists
  2. 2 Whether damages should be based on non-delivery of 3,000 or 2,500 tons under contract allowing for 10% variance
  3. 3 Whether purchaser acted reasonably in mitigation by buying substitute goods at a higher price

Ratio Decidendi

The proper measure of damages was the difference between the contract price and the actual price reasonably paid by the respondents to procure similar goods (3,000 tons) from an Australian importer after the appellant's breach, as the respondents acted reasonably and there was no available local market.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Judgment for respondents on counterclaim for £1,052 10s.
  • Judgment for appellant for £975 on original claim; set-off results in judgment for respondents for balance of £77 10s.