Selecting and, where appropriate, quantifying the appropriate remedy for breach of contract poses many intractable difficulties. English contract law remains squeamish about literal enforcement of the obligations undertaken by the parties, save in cases of duties to pay money. Its characteristic remedy is to award damages for breach in substitution of enforcement. Traditionally this remedy aimed to place the claimant in financial terms in the position in which he would have been had the contract been performed in accordance with its terms. More recently, the North American terminology of protecting the “expectation interest” has yielded in the law journals to recognition of damages approximating to a claimant’s “interest in performance”,1 with some judicial support.2 The general aim of contract damages is crucial. But of equal importance in practice are the various doctrinal limitations on what can be recovered, including principally rules on remoteness, mitigation and contributory negligence. Law school discussions of remoteness issues centre on a famous quartet of cases: Hadley v. Baxendale ;3 Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v. Newman Industries Ltd ;4 The Heron II ;5 and Parsons v. Uttley Ingham

---

11