NOTES: POSSIBLE LEGAL CLAIMS-RE BRYANDALE DISTRICT Council & OTHERS[As per the assignment, these are notes covering the Bryandale District council scenario for examination preparation. The instructions specify that theses notes shall be 2 pages (double sided) of 4 paper]The possible causes of action (legal claims), claimants, defendants and legal issues upon which you may be examined are as follows: Claim against McGregors: Bryandale District Council (“BDC”) would certainly have a significant claim against MacGregors who are the main building contractors. The claim will be for breach of contract. In November 2003 a construction firm named MacGregors was employed by BDC on the recommendation of Dougal Glendower a wealthy landowner and entrepreneur.
Earth Life Trust, a charitable fund has donated £15m to the project, with the stipulation that the building materials used should be environment friendly. Unfortunately MacGregors was embroiled in some negative publicity due to which the Earth Life Trust has put a temporary injunction on the payments to be made for the construction till the time MacGregors is not exonerated. Although the building was constructed within time, it was discovered that the materials used were not the same as had been stipulated by the Earth Life Trust.
A breach of contract occurs when the terms of a contract are not fulfilled by either of the parties to the contract. BDC shall be entitled to claim damages from MacGregors as the actions of MacGregors have lead to a financial loss for BDC. Watts & Co v Morrow in this case the question that arose for consideration was whether it can be claimed that that the surveyor of the grounds had negligently failed to report certain defects in the house.
Here the court observed that where the contract had been entered into so that the plaintiff be able to derive certain pleasure from it. And the defendant had been negligent, due to which the plaintiff has suffered a loss, the defendant shall be held liable ( 4 All ER 939;  1 WLR 1421)Hadley v. Baxendale the plaintiff who was a mill operator was forced to shut down his mill due to a broken piece of machinery. The plaintiff therefore contracted with the defendant to deliver the repaired piece of machinery by a specific date.
The defendant failed to do so, and was sued by the plaintiff for breach of contract. The above case was a landmark in considering the remoteness of damages in a contract. It was observed that the damages should be such which may be considered fair and reasonable and arising either in the usual course of things, or may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties at the time they made the contract as the probable result of the breach (9 Exch.
341, 156 Eng. Rep. 145 (1854)). Wilkinson v Downton here the defandant had deliberately set out to frighten the plaintiff by telling her that her husband had met with an accident. The courts in this case established a new rule which stated that is a person sets out to cause harm to another and does cause harm indirectly then he shall be liable to compensate that person( [1895-99] AER Rep 267). In the above situation even though MacGregors had not set out cause a loss to BDC their negligent actions had resulted in such circumstances.