2025 FREE SCHOO OF LAW ENTRANCE EXAMS REVISION SESSION 11 - MORE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS REMEDIES

Overview
This session was the 11th Free Law School Entrance Exams Revision Tutorial focusing on remedies for breach of contract in Ghanaian law. Dr. Ernest led students through a detailed examination of damages, specific performance, and restitution principles, using past exam questions to demonstrate proper analytical approaches. The session emphasized both theoretical understanding and practical application of contract law remedies through essay and problem-based questions.
Key Concepts or Theories:
Compensatory nature of damages in contract law (not punitive)
Expectation, reliance, and restitutionary damages
Remoteness of damages (Hadley v Baxendale principle)
Duty to mitigate losses
Specific performance as an equitable and discretionary remedy
Unjust enrichment and restitution principles
Liquidated damages versus penalty clauses
Important Questions Raised:
How do courts determine whether to grant specific performance?
Are courts concerned only with financial loss in breach of contract cases?
How does Ghanaian law provide remedies for unjust enrichment?
What damages can be claimed when a contract is partially performed?
Key Takeaways and Summary of Learning Objectives
The main objective of damages for breach of contract is to put the claimant in the same position they would have been in had the contract been performed (Robinson v Harmon principle).
Damages in contract are primarily compensatory rather than punitive, focusing on protecting the innocent party's expectation interest.
Specific performance is an equitable remedy that compels actual performance of contractual obligations, granted only when damages would be inadequate.
Courts have increasingly recognized non-pecuniary losses in certain contract cases, despite the traditional focus on financial compensation.
Restitution principles prevent unjust enrichment when contracts fail or are terminated early.
Topic 1: Principles of Damages in Contract Law
The fundamental principle of damages in contract law is to place the innocent party in the same financial position they would have been in had the contract been performed. This compensatory approach, established in Robinson v Harmon and reinforced in Ghanaian cases like Mola v Home Finance Company Limited, aims not to punish the contract breaker but to restore the innocent party to their expected position. Different types of damages serve different purposes: expectation damages protect the "benefit of the bargain" (profits or difference between contract and market price); reliance damages cover wasted expenditure where profits are uncertain (as in Anglia Television v Reed); and restitutionary damages prevent unjust enrichment (Attorney General v Blake). These principles are subject to important limitations, including remoteness of damages (Hadley v Baxendale), which restricts recovery to losses arising naturally from the breach or within reasonable contemplation of both parties at the time of contract formation. Additionally, the duty to mitigate requires innocent parties to take reasonable steps to minimize their losses following a breach.
Relevant Q&A
Stephen: What if a minor enters into a contract with an adult, and the minor performs his part but the adult doesn't?
Dr Ernest: That's not directly relevant to specific performance principles.
Tijani: The remedy of specific performance would be granted where damages wouldn't be adequate to compensate the affected party to restore that party into the position he was before the breach of contracts.
Dr Ernest: That's correct.
Topic 2: Non-Pecuniary Losses and Exceptions
While traditional contract law focuses primarily on financial losses, courts have increasingly recognized exceptions where non-pecuniary losses may be compensated. The general position established in Addis v Gramophone Company Limited is that contract law is not designed to compensate for emotions. However, several exceptions have emerged: contracts for pleasure, enjoyment, or peace of mind (Jarvis v Swan Tours and Jackson v Horizon Holidays); loss of amenity or consumer surplus (Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth, where damages were awarded for a swimming pool built to incorrect specifications despite being functionally adequate); and contracts protecting against distress or anxiety (Heywood v Wallas). Ghanaian law follows the English approach, as demonstrated in Jackson Smith v KLM Dutch Airlines, where the court granted damages for inconvenience when the airline failed to transport a passenger to a business meeting according to the agreed ticket. These cases demonstrate that while financial compensation remains the primary focus, courts recognize that certain contracts inherently involve non-financial elements worthy of protection.
Relevant Q&A
Emmanuel: The court may decide to grant specific performance as a remedy where monetary damage may not be sufficient to compensate the injured party. A

-