Substitutability and disgorgement damages in contract

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511779213.019

17 - Substitutability and disgorgement damages in contract

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 November 2010

Katy Barnett

Edited by

Elise Bant and

Matthew Harding

Show author details

Elise Bant: Affiliation:
University of Melbourne
Matthew Harding: Affiliation:
University of Melbourne

Book contents

Get access

Summary

The principles governing the award of disgorgement damages for breach of contract remain opaque. In the leading judgment in Attorney-General v Blake, Lord Nicholls proposed a ‘legitimate interest’ test for determining when a breach of contract would give rise to an account of profits. However, continuing uncertainty about what constitutes a legitimate interest has made the test notoriously difficult to apply. In that context, Lord Steyn's remark, that ‘[e]xceptions to the general principle that there is no remedy for disgorgement of profits against a contract breaker are best hammered out on the anvil of concrete cases’, simply highlights the need for concrete criteria to guide the enquiry. The fact remains that, nine years after Blake was decided, and notwithstanding numerous cases addressing the question, there is no settled judicial approach as to when disgorgement of profits will be awarded for breach of contract.

This chapter suggests that the concept of ‘substitutability’ is an important key to the enquiry which must be made by courts. Substitutability is already a criterion for the award of specific relief. But the way in which substitutability is applied to determine a plaintiff's right to disgorgement in different contexts needs to be nuanced. This chapter explains that, for what are here called the ‘second sale’ cases, the central question is whether the subject matter of the contract was substitutable. However, the chapter goes on to explain that for the so-called ‘agency problem’ cases, substitutability is not the only factor, although it remains relevant.

Type: Chapter
Information: Exploring Private Law , pp. 377 - 401

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511779213.019 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Waddams, SM, ‘Restitution as Part of Contract Law’ in Burrows, A (ed), Essays on the Law of Restitution (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1991) 197Google Scholar

Edelman, J, Gain-Based Damages: Contract, Tort, Equity and Intellectual Property (Hart Publishing, Oxford 2002) 152−5Google Scholar

Benson, P, ‘Disgorgement for Breach of Contract and Corrective Justice: An Analysis in Outline’ in Neyers, JW, McInnes, M and Pitel, SGA (eds), Understanding Unjust Enrichment (Hart Publishing, Oxford 2004) 327−30Google Scholar

Jaffey, P, ‘Disgorgement and “Licence Fee Damages” in Contract’ (2004) 20 JCL1, 10Google Scholar

Eisenberg, MA, ‘The Disgorgement Interest in Contract Law’ (2006) 105 Mich L Rev559, 582Google Scholar

Cunnington, R, ‘The Measure and Availability of Gain-Based Damages for Breach of Contract’ in Cunnington, R and Saidov, D (eds), Contract Damages: Domestic and International Perspectives (Hart Publishing, Oxford 2008) 205−42Google Scholar

Cunnington, R, ‘The Inadequacy of Damages as a Remedy for Breach of Contract’ in Rickett, CEF (ed), Justifying Private Law Remedies (Hart Publishing, Oxford 2008) 115−45Google Scholar

Stevens, R, Torts and Rights (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2007) 60CrossRef Google Scholar

Chapman, B and Trebilcock, M, ‘Punitive Damages: Divergence in Search of a Rationale’ (1989) 40 Ala L Rev741, 780–3Google Scholar

Dawson, JH, ‘Restitution Without Enrichment’ (1981) 61 B U L Rev563, 614Google Scholar

Chambers, R, ‘The Importance of Specific Performance’ in Degeling, S and Edelman, J (eds), Equity in Commercial Law (Lawbook Co, Sydney 2005) 431Google Scholar

Farnsworth, EA, ‘Your Loss or My Gain? The Dilemma of the Disgorgement Principle in Breach of Contract’ (1985) 94 Yale LJ1339, 1364−5CrossRef Google Scholar

Dagan, H, ‘The Distributive Foundation of Corrective Justice’ (1999) 98 Mich L Rev138CrossRef Google Scholar

Pomeroy, JN, A Treatise on Equity Jurisprudence (Vol 4) (4th edn Bancroft-Whitney Company, San Francisco 1919) §1343, 3218−16Google Scholar

Pomeroy, JN, Treatise on the Specific Performance of Contracts (3rd edn Banks & Company, Albany 1926) §24, 75–7Google Scholar

Wonnell, CT, ‘The Contractual Disempowerment of Employees’ (1993) 46 Stan L Rev87CrossRef Google Scholar

Posner, R, Economic Analysis of Law (5th edn Aspen Law & Business, New York 1998) 131–9Google Scholar

Campbell, D, ‘The Treatment of Teacher v Calder in AG v Blake’ (2002) 65 MLR256CrossRef Google Scholar

Campbell, D and Harris, D ‘In Defence of Breach: A Critique of Restitution and the Performance Interest’ (2002) 22 JLS208Google Scholar

Campbell, D, ‘The Extinguishing of Contract (2004) 67 MLR818CrossRef Google Scholar

Long, S, ‘The Efficiency of a Disgorgement as a Remedy for Breach of Contract’ (1989) 22 Ind L Rev737Google Scholar

O'Dair, R, ‘Restitutionary Damages for Breach of Contract and the Theory of Efficient Breach: Some Reflections’ (1993) 46 CLP113, 131Google Scholar

Smith, LD, ‘Disgorgement of the Profits of Breach of Contract: Property, Contract and “Efficient Breach”’ (1995) 24 CBLJ121, 134–5Google Scholar

Macneil, IR, ‘Efficient Breach of Contract: Circles in the Sky’ (1982) 68 Va L Rev947CrossRef Google Scholar

Friedmann, D, ‘The Efficient Breach Fallacy’ (1989) 18 JLS1CrossRef Google Scholar

Jaffey, P, ‘Efficiency, Disgorgement and Reliance in Contract: A Comment On Campbell and Harris’ (2002) 22 LS570Google Scholar

Eisenberg, M, ‘Actual and Virtual Specific Performance, the Theory of Efficient Breach, and the Indifference Principle in Contract Law’ (2005) 93 California LR975, 989–96Google Scholar

Cunnington, R, ‘Should Punitive Damages Be Part of the Judicial Arsenal in Contract Cases?’ (2006) 26 LS369, 384–9Google Scholar

Laycock, D, ‘The Death of the Irreparable Injury Rule’ (1990) 103 Harv L Rev687, 707–8CrossRef Google Scholar

Stiglitz, JE, ‘Principal and Agent (ii)’ in Durlauf, SN and Blume, (eds), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (2nd edn Palgrave Macmillan, London 2008)Google Scholar

Cooter, R and Freedman, BJ, ‘The Fiduciary Relationship: Its Economic Character and Legal Consequences’ (1991) 66 NYULR1045, 1047Google Scholar

Laycock, D, ‘The Scope and Significance of Restitution’ (1989) 67 Tex L Rev1277, 1287Google Scholar

Conaglen, M, ‘The Nature and Function of Fiduciary Loyalty’ (2005) 121 LQR452, 463Google Scholar

Edelman, J, ‘Gain-Based Damages and Compensation’ in Burrows, A and Lord Rodger of Earlsferry (eds), Mapping the Law: Essays in Memory of Peter Birks (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2006) 141, 147–50Google Scholar

Duggan, A, ‘Solicitors’ Conflict of Interest and the Wider Fiduciary Question' (2007) 45 CBLJ414, 421–2Google Scholar

Finn, PD, ‘The Fiduciary Principle’ in Youdan, TG (ed), Equity, Fiduciaries and Trusts (Carswell, Toronto 1989) 26Google Scholar

Smith, L, ‘The Motive, Not the Deed’ in Getzler, J (ed), Rationalizing Property, Equity and Trusts: Essays in Honour of Edward Burn (LexisNexis Butterworths, London 2003) 53Google Scholar

Easterbrook, FH and Fischel, DR, ‘Contract and Fiduciary Duty’ (1993) 26 J Law and Economics425, 438CrossRef Google Scholar

Birks, P, ‘Restitutionary Damages for Breach of Contract: Snepp and the Fusion of Law and Equity’ [1987] LCMLQ421Google Scholar

Barnett, K, ‘Deterrence and Disgorging Profits for Breach of Contract’ [2009] RLR79, 89–90Google Scholar