CASE LAW

ANALYSIS :
Made by : JAOUHARI Doha.

ALPINE SKI HOUSE

 BREACH OF
CONTRACT :
When parties involved in a contract, whether that
contract is established orally or in writing, fail to
uphold their part of the agreement, it's possible
to determine them to be in breach of contract.
There are a number of ways in which a breach of
contract might occur but the most common
include:

• Failing to deliver services or goods

• Failing to complete a job

• Failing to pay in a timely manner

ALPINE SKI HOUSE

PROJECT 2
 CASE LAW ANALYSIS.
ALPINE SKI HOUSE
PROJECT 3
 BRUENING ROCK PRODUCTS V. HAWKEYE INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS

Introduction :

The formal definition of a breach of contract includes the following:

- Unjustifiably failing to adhere to the terms of a contractual agreement.
- Violating an agreement by failing to perform or interfering with another party's
ability to meet their obligations under the contract.
In simple terms, a breach of contract happens when promises are broken or
somebody fails to provide things that are included in the terms of the agreement.

ALPINE SKI HOUSE

PROJECT 4
 BRUENING ROCK PRODUCTS V. HAWKEYE INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS

Facts :
In Bruening Rock Products, Inc. v. Hawkeye International Trucks, No. 14-1215 (July 22, 2015), the plaintiff sought
breach of contract damages from a truck company. The claim was simple. The plaintiff, which was a rock
quarry operator, ordered four trucks from the defendant. The plaintiff required that the trucks have a gross
vehicle weight rating of 74,000 pounds. This meant that each truck would have the capacity to haul 74,000
pounds, including the weight of the truck. The plaintiff needed the trucks to haul rock from its underground
mines.
At trial, the plaintiff testified that the trucks had failed to perform at this level. The wheel rims had cracked and
the rims malfunctioned. The jury found that the defendant had breached its contract with the plaintiff and
issued a verdict in the plaintiff’s favor in the amount of $1,167,904.85.
The trial court, however, granted the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict, finding that the plaintiff had
failed to generate substantial evidence of a breach of a written contract term by the defendant. The
plaintiff’s actual claim, the trial court found, may have been one for breach of implied warranty. The trial
court stated, however, that the statute of limitations would have already run on that claim.
ALPINE SKI HOUSE
PROJECT 5
 BRUENING ROCK PRODUCTS V. HAWKEYE INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS

Court of Appeals decision :

The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that the defendant had
expressly promised performance and then failed to deliver on that promise. This, the court found, was the requirement
for a breach of contract claim. The trial court had instructed the jury that it would have to find proof of the following
elements to find a breach of contract:
The existence of a contract.

The terms of the contract, including a term that the defendant would provide trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of
74,000 pounds.
The plaintiff had done what the contract requires.
The defendant had breached the contract by failing to provide trucks which met the terms of the contract.

The amount of any damage the defendant had caused.

ALPINE SKI HOUSE
PROJECT 6
 UK SUPREME COURT ON DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT :

Court of Appeals decision :

The Court of Appeals—agreeing that these were the correct elements to prove breach of contract—ruled that
the record contained substantial evidence to support them. The court detailed the contract formation
process: The plaintiff negotiated with the defendant to design and manufacture four trucks capable of
hauling approximately 25 tons of rock from the underground mines. Following initial discussions, the
defendant presented a proposal listing the trucks’ specifications. The plaintiff accepted the proposal and the
trucks were manufactured by a third party. The proposal clearly stated that the trucks would have a gross
vehicle weight rating of 74,000 pounds. Substantial evidence supported a jury finding that this requirement
was not a mere boiler-plate rating, but a specific, negotiated term affecting the performance of the vehicle.
Substantial evidence existed to support the jury’s verdict as a whole. The court remanded the case for a
reinstatement of the verdict.
ALPINE SKI HOUSE
PROJECT 7
 UK SUPREME COURT ON DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT :

Court of Appeals decision :

The court pointed out in a footnote that the defendant had not specifically pleaded its defense that this was
really a claim of implied warranty barred by the five-year statute of limitations. The court noted that such a
pleading requirement is “civil procedure 101” and that without such a pleading, the court could not
entertain the question.
Nonetheless, the result appears correct based upon the facts provided in the opinion. The defendant’s
written proposal, which was accepted by the plaintiff, contained the material term alleged to have been
breached. The jury found that such a breach did occur. “Contracts 101” would thus suggest that the plaintiff
properly prevailed.

ALPINE SKI HOUSE

PROJECT 8
 CONCLUSION :
When a party fails to live up to its obligations under the contract, he is said to
have breached the agreement or to be in breach of contract. The party
harmed by this breach may sue to recover damages. Courts generally refer to
some basic principles in determining what sort of damages a party may
recover. First, courts prefer that damages be monetary rather than to order
specific performance, or force a party to go through with its contractual
obligations. Second, judicial relief is intended to compensate the promise,
putting the party back in the position he would have been if the breach had
not occurred and the contract had been fulfilled.

In addition, contract law is primarily intended to provide relief to the party

harmed by the breach, not to punish the breaching party.
Thus, punitive damages, or damages intended to deter certain types of
behavior through additional monetary penalties, are not usually recoverable
in a contract dispute. Sometimes, a party can prove a breach of contract, but
cannot prove damages with any reasonable degree of certainty. In such
cases, a court may grant nominal damages, such as $1, in recognition of the
harm caused by the breach. The exact type of damages granted by a court
depends on the situation

ALPINE SKI HOUSE

 CASE LAW ANALYSIS :

THANK YOU FOR YOUR

ATTENTION !

ALPINE SKI HOUSE 10

PROJECT