Charter v Sullivan
Where demand for goods exceeds supply, a seller whose buyer refuses to take the goods suffers only nominal damages, because he can sell them to another buyer.
Facts
Mr Sullivan agreed to buy a new Hillman Minx car from Mr Charter, a car dealer, but then refused to take delivery. Mr Charter sold the car to another buyer a few days later, at the same price. He sued Mr Sullivan for the lost profit. The evidence showed that the dealer could sell all the Hillman Minx cars he could get.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that Mr Charter was entitled only to nominal damages. Jenkins LJ said that, unlike in Thompson v Robinson, the demand for Hillman Minx cars exceeded supply, so the dealer would have sold the same number of cars whether or not Mr Sullivan had defaulted. He had therefore not lost a sale, and had suffered no loss of profit. The measure of damages depends on whether the seller lost a sale because of the buyer's breach.
Related cases on remedies in sale of goods
- Behnke v Bede Shipping Co Ltd [1927] 1 KB 649
- Bence Graphics International Ltd v Fasson UK Ltd [1998] QB 87
- Bernstein v Pamson Motors (Golders Green) Ltd [1987] 2 All ER 220
- Cehave NV v Bremer Handelsgesellschaft mbH (The Hansa Nord) [1976] QB 44
- Clegg v Olle Andersson (The Hampton) [2003] EWCA Civ 320
- Cohen v Roche [1927] 1 KB 169
- Hongkong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd [1962] 2 QB 26
- J&H Ritchie Ltd v Lloyd Ltd [2007] UKHL 9, [2007] 1 WLR 670
Studying commercial law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
