Activity 01
Problem Question Clinic
In small groups, students analyse a detailed problem scenario involving a breach of contract. They must identify the breach, advise the claimant on the most appropriate remedy, and justify their reasoning with reference to relevant case law on damages, remoteness, and mitigation.
Explain the principles of causation and remoteness in the calculation of contractual damages.
Facilitation TipProvide a structured advice template (e.g., IRAC method) to help students organise their legal arguments.
What to look forA scenario-based problem question where students must advise a client on the full range of available remedies, calculating potential damages and considering the likelihood of obtaining an equitable remedy.
AnalyzeEvaluateCreateDecision-MakingSelf-Management
Generate Complete Lesson→· · ·
Activity 02
Remedies Debate
Divide the class into two sides to debate the motion: 'This house believes that equitable remedies are more effective than damages in achieving justice for a breach of contract.' Students must research and prepare arguments citing specific cases to support their position.
Analyse the duty of an innocent party to mitigate their loss following a breach.
Facilitation TipAppoint a student chairperson to manage time and ensure the debate remains focused on legal principles.
What to look forStudents write a 'case note' on Hadley v Baxendale, summarising the facts, the legal principle established (the two limbs of the remoteness test), and its significance in contract law.
AnalyzeEvaluateCreateDecision-MakingSelf-Management
Generate Complete Lesson→· · ·
Activity 03
Mitigation Decision-Making
Present students with a scenario where a contract has been breached. They are given several possible courses of action and must decide which represents a 'reasonable step' in mitigation, explaining why the other options would likely fail this test and result in reduced damages.
Compare the common law remedy of damages with the equitable remedies of specific performance and injunction.
Facilitation TipUse a real-world example, such as a cancelled holiday booking, to make the concept of mitigation more relatable.
What to look forIn pairs, students draft answers to a short question on mitigation. They then swap answers and use a shared mark scheme to provide constructive feedback.
AnalyzeEvaluateCreateDecision-MakingSelf-Management
Generate Complete Lesson→A few notes on teaching this unit
Start by cementing the compensatory principle of damages as the default remedy. Use a clear, linear progression to introduce the limiting factors: causation, then remoteness (using Hadley v Baxendale as the anchor case), and finally mitigation. Contrast this rule-based common law approach with the discretionary nature of equitable remedies, emphasising that they are exceptional solutions for when money is not a sufficient answer.
Upon completing this topic, your students will be able to analyse a breach of contract scenario and advise a client on the most suitable and likely remedies available to them.
Watch Out for These Misconceptions
Damages are awarded to punish the party who breached the contract.
The primary purpose of contractual damages is compensatory, not punitive. They aim to place the innocent party in the financial position they would have been in had the contract been performed, as per Robinson v Harman.
The claimant can claim for any and all losses that result from a breach.
Losses must not be too remote from the breach. The test in Hadley v Baxendale limits recoverable losses to those that arise naturally from the breach or were in the reasonable contemplation of both parties when the contract was made.
If someone breaches a contract, you can always force them to complete it.
Forcing a party to perform their obligations (specific performance) is an equitable remedy, not an automatic right. It is only granted at the court's discretion when damages are an inadequate remedy, and is never granted for contracts of personal service.
The 'duty to mitigate' means the breaching party can sue the innocent party for not minimising their loss.
It is not a duty that can be sued upon. Rather, it means the innocent party cannot recover damages for losses which they could have reasonably avoided. The burden of proof is on the defendant to show the claimant failed to mitigate.
Methods used in this brief