.svg)
6
edits
Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd: Difference between revisions
m
robot: Update article (please report if you notice any mistake or error in this edit)
>OAbot m (Open access bot: doi added to citation with #oabot.) |
m (robot: Update article (please report if you notice any mistake or error in this edit)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Use dmy dates|date=April 2022}} | |||
{{Infobox court case | {{Infobox court case | ||
| name = Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd | | name = Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd | ||
| Line 107: | Line 108: | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
“By the law of England as a general rule a vendor who from whatever cause fails to perform his contract is bound, as was said by Lord Wensleydale in the case referred to, to place the purchaser, so far as money will do it, in the position he would have been in if the contract had been performed. If a man sells a cargo of goods not yet come to hand, but which he believes to have been consigned to him from abroad, and the goods fail to arrive, it will be no answer to the intended purchaser to say that a third party who had engaged to consign the goods to the seller has deceived or disappointed him. The purchaser will be entitled to the difference between the contract price and the market price.” | “By the law of England as a general rule a vendor who from whatever cause fails to perform his contract is bound, as was said by Lord Wensleydale in the case referred to, to place the purchaser, so far as money will do it, in the position he would have been in if the contract had been performed. If a man sells a cargo of goods not yet come to hand, but which he believes to have been consigned to him from abroad, and the goods fail to arrive, it will be no answer to the intended purchaser to say that a third party who had engaged to consign the goods to the seller has deceived or disappointed him. The purchaser will be entitled to the difference between the contract price and the market price.” | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
In ''Sikes v Wild''<ref>(1861) 1 B&S 587, at p 594</ref> [[Colin Blackburn, Baron Blackburn|Lord Blackburn]] says: | In ''Sikes v Wild''<ref>(1861) 1 B&S 587, at p 594</ref> [[Colin Blackburn, Baron Blackburn|Lord Blackburn]] says: | ||
| Line 176: | Line 177: | ||
The case was met with immediate disapproval in a number of quarters. [[Sir Frederick Pollock, 3rd Baronet|Sir Frederick Pollock]], contrasted "an artificial rule or mere authority" to "the rationale of the matter": | The case was met with immediate disapproval in a number of quarters. [[Sir Frederick Pollock, 3rd Baronet|Sir Frederick Pollock]], contrasted "an artificial rule or mere authority" to "the rationale of the matter": | ||
{{Cquote|In the case of wrongful dismissal, a harsh and humiliating way of doing it, by the imputation which such a dismissal conveys, may make it very difficult for the servant to obtain a new situation. That was how the court looked at it in ''Maw v Jones'';<ref name="Maw1890">{{cite court |litigants= Maw v Jones|vol= 25|reporter= QBD|opinion=107 |date= 1890|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=zgUxAAAAIAAJ& | {{Cquote|In the case of wrongful dismissal, a harsh and humiliating way of doing it, by the imputation which such a dismissal conveys, may make it very difficult for the servant to obtain a new situation. That was how the court looked at it in ''Maw v Jones'';<ref name="Maw1890">{{cite court |litigants= Maw v Jones|vol= 25|reporter= QBD|opinion=107 |date= 1890|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=zgUxAAAAIAAJ&pg=PR13}}</ref> not as a mere personal slight or affront. So in ''Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd'' the plaintiff was dismissed summarily from an important post in India, and the whole management taken out of his hands in a way which could not but import obloquy among the commercial community of India, and as a result permanent loss. It was no mere rudeness or want of consideration. But the majority of the House of Lords thought the damages in question were really for defamation, and could be recovered only in a separate action.<ref>{{cite journal |last1= Pollock|first1= Frederick|author-link1= Sir Frederick Pollock, 3rd Baronet|date= 1910|title= Notes|journal= [[Law Quarterly Review]]|volume= 26|pages= 1–2}}</ref> }} | ||
In 1997, [[Lord Steyn]] explained the current jurisprudence relating to the ''[[ratio decidendi|ratio]]'' of ''Addis'' in his judgment in ''[[Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA]]'': | In 1997, [[Lord Steyn]] explained the current jurisprudence relating to the ''[[ratio decidendi|ratio]]'' of ''Addis'' in his judgment in ''[[Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA]]'': | ||
| Line 206: | Line 207: | ||
{{DEFAULTSORT:Addis V Gramophone Co Ltd}} | {{DEFAULTSORT:Addis V Gramophone Co Ltd}} | ||
[[Category:United Kingdom labour case law]] | [[Category:United Kingdom labour case law]] | ||
[[Category:English remedy case law]] | [[Category:English remedy case law]] | ||