Loss Of Chance In Contract Law

1749 Words7 Pages
The regulation of loss of chance was highlighted in the year 1911 in the case of Chaplin V Hicks . Even after a century, perplexity encompassing this tenet still awaits on. Loss of chance damages reinforces the principal objective of contract law in remediation of breach. They secure the reasonable expectations of the respective parties and the interests of those who have reasonably relied on the promises or behaviours of others . However, what makes the loss of chance matter complex is that it takes into account not just the events between intermediate parties, claimant and defendant, but also the role of an outsider or third party. In general terms, what indeed is a loss of chance? It can be said that it is an event which is neither within…show more content…
Loss of chance damages are consequential and should be pleaded specifically . Loss of chance damage can also be categorised as expectation loss. The law treats the claimant's loss of chance as actionable damage as a result of breach of contract. The claimant is relieved from being required to prove on the balance or probabilities that it would have made the profit or suffered the loss. It merely needs to show that there was a real or substantial chance that it could have done so. The court will then quantify the loss as best as it can, as long as the chance is not merely speculative but also substantial . The problem arises when the law must quantify the claimant’s loss of the chance of making a gain or avoiding a loss due to the breach. This paper tries to unravel the complexity of "loss of chance" doctrine in breach of contract cases and its implications. Initially, we will focus on how and when the claimant should prove the extent of his loss of chance. Further, it's implication over the breach of contract cases in Singapore. Finally, we will analyse the problems associated with the quantification of loss of…show more content…
The assessment of the chance will then be reflected in the damages, which eventually the court will have to decide. This case accepted the 'loss of chance' approach and regarded the case as one of those where "the plaintiff's loss depends upon the hypothetical action of a third party, either in addition to action by the plaintiff or independently of it ." Thus it appears that when the opportunity depends upon the act of third party, loss of chance approach seems appropriate. The reason behind this is that the court cannot know how a third party might have acted and as result of which the onus of proof on the claimant reduces, but does not diminish

More about Loss Of Chance In Contract Law

Open Document