Chaplin v Hicks | |
---|---|
Sir Seymour Hicks | |
Court | Court of Appeal of England and Wales |
Decided | 16 May 1911 |
Citation | 2 KB 786 |
Keywords | |
Contract, remedies |
Chaplin v Hicks 2 KB 786 is an English contract law case, concerning the right to damages for loss of a chance after a breach of contract.
Facts
Seymour Hicks, a well-known actor and theatrical manager, invited women to submit their photographs to compete in a beauty contest where the winners would be chosen by the readers of one newspaper. He promised to give engagements as actresses to the winners. Ms Chaplin submitted her photograph and came first in her section, which entitled her to be considered for one of the twelve finalists. The notice reached her too late, and she was not able to make the appointment with Mr Hicks. She sued Mr Hicks for damages for breach of contract to compensate her for the loss of a chance to be selected for an engagement.
Judgment
The Court of Appeal upheld a £100 award for the loss of the chance at winning the contest, awarded by the jury.
Vaughan Williams LJ dismissed the arguments that the damages were either (1) too remote or (2) unassessable.
Remedies cases | |
---|---|
Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Exch 850 | |
Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal & Mining Co., 382 P 2d 109 (1962) | |
Ruxley Electronics Ltd v Forsyth | |
Anglia Television Ltd v Reed 1 QB 60 | |
Chaplin v Hicks 2 KB 786 | |
Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd | |
Farley v Skinner | |
Hadley v Baxendale | |
The Achilleas | |
British Westinghouse Ltd v Underground Ltd AC 673 | |
Banco de Portugal v Waterlow | |
Saamco v York Montague Ltd | |
Sky Petroleum v VIP Petroleum 1 WLR 576 | |
Patel v Ali Ch 283 | |
Cooperative Insurance Ltd v Argyll Ltd | |
Attorney General v Blake | |
Wrotham Park Ltd v Parkside Homes Ltd 1 WLR 798 | |
Surrey CC v Bredero Homes Ltd | |
Rowland v Divall 2 KB 500 | |
Dies v British Mining and Finance Corp Ltd 1 KB 724 |