High Court of Australia (1993) 176 CLR 344
This is a case related to the shipping company, it is basically a Contract act case which is held in 1993 between the parties baltic shipping company and Dillion.https://www.australiancontractlaw.info/cases/database/baltic-shipping-v-dillon
FACTS
The dillion was make a contract with the passenger on a cruise ship,” Mikhail Lermontov” which is owned and operated by a baltic ship company with a 14 days contract , but after the 9 days the ship sank and Mr. Dillion lost his belongings and he suffered from injury. She sued for the loss recovery cruise and the damages.
PARTIES
Mr Dillion, Petitioner
The baltic shipping company, Respondent
ISSUE
- Whether there is a total lack of consideration by the Baltic shipping company?
- Whether the Dillion recovers the damages for distress?
JUDGEMENT
Damages for disappointment and distress are not recoverable unless they proceed from the physical inconvenience caused by the breach or unless the contract is one of the objects which is to provide enjoyment, relaxation or freedom from molestation.
So the high court of Australia said that the following points, which are given below;
- There was not a total failure of consideration due to 5 days remaining in a total of 14 days.
- Physical loss damages should not be awarded.
- Damages should be awarded only on that point of the contract where the points are not clearly determined.
Comments (2)