Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "{{casenote|Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd|New Garage & Motor Co Ltd}} '' (1915) AC 79, is a leading case on penalty clauses (bad) and liquidated damages clauses (good)....")
 
 
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{casenote|Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd|New Garage & Motor Co Ltd}} '' (1915) AC 79, is a leading case on [[penalty clauses]] (bad) and [[liquidated damages]] clauses (good).
{{cn}}{{cite|Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd|New Garage & Motor Co Ltd|1915|AC|79}}, is a leading case on [[penalty clauses]] (bad) and [[liquidated damages]] clauses (good).


Lord Dunedin had suggested the following often quoted factors:
Lord Dunedin had suggested the following often quoted factors:
• A provision is penal if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach.
*if the sum stipulated for is “extravagant” and “unconscionable” in amount in comparison with the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach.
• A provision is penal if the breach consisted only in the non-payment of money and the provision provided for the payment of a larger sum.
*if the breach consisted only in the non-payment of money and the provision provided for the payment of a larger sum.
• There is a presumption (but no more) that a provision is penal if the same sum is payable in a number of events of varying gravity.
*if the same sum is payable in a number of events of varying gravity (this is a rebuttable presumption).
• A provision is not penal by reason only of the impossibility of precisely pre-estimating the true loss.
*A provision is not penal by reason only of the impossibility of precisely pre-estimating the true loss.


Glossed over more recently by {{casenote|ParkingEye Ltd|Beavis}} and {{casenote|Cavendish Square Holdings|El Makdessi}}
Glossed over more recently by {{casenote|ParkingEye Ltd|Beavis}} and {{casenote|Cavendish Square Holdings|El Makdessi}}, which seem better fit for the kinder, gentler world we now inhabit.
 
{{sa}}
*[[Penalty clause]]
*{{casenote|ParkingEye Ltd|Beavis}}
*{{casenote|Cavendish Square Holdings|El Makdessi}}

Latest revision as of 19:05, 19 December 2020

The Jolly Contrarian Law Reports
Our own, snippy, in-house court reporting service.
JCLR.png
A shelf in the JC’s law library yesterday
Editorial Board of the JCLR: Managing Editor: Lord Justice Cocklecarrot M.R. · General Editor: Sir Jerrold Baxter-Morley, K.C. · Principle witness: Mrs. Pinterman

Common law | Litigation | Contract | Tort |

Click ᐅ to expand:
Case notes

Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you.
Sign up for our newsletter.

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79, is a leading case on penalty clauses (bad) and liquidated damages clauses (good).

Lord Dunedin had suggested the following often quoted factors:

  • if the sum stipulated for is “extravagant” and “unconscionable” in amount in comparison with the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach.
  • if the breach consisted only in the non-payment of money and the provision provided for the payment of a larger sum.
  • if the same sum is payable in a number of events of varying gravity (this is a rebuttable presumption).
  • A provision is not penal by reason only of the impossibility of precisely pre-estimating the true loss.

Glossed over more recently by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis and Cavendish Square Holdings v El Makdessi, which seem better fit for the kinder, gentler world we now inhabit.

See also

Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Dunlop_Pneumatic_Tyre_Co_Ltd_v_New_Garage_%26_Motor_Co_Ltd&oldid=50606"