This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Chaplin v Hicks [1911] 2 KB 786

By Oxbridge Law TeamUpdated 04/01/2024 07:00

Judgement for the case Chaplin v Hicks

KEY POINTS

  • Contract breach may lead to damages. Determining the remoteness of damage involves a test of the damage that flows naturally from the breach and is in contemplation by the parties as a result of the breach.

  • The jury has to assess damages to the best of their ability. In cases where the plaintiff is deprived of the right to compete for a prize, and the chance of winning depends on contingencies, damages may be awarded.

FACTS

  • In November 1908, actor Seymour Hicks, also the Aldwych Theatre lessee, launched a public offer through the "Daily Express." He aimed to select 24 beautiful faces from submitted photographs of ladies across England, with readers voting for the top 12. The highest vote-getters would secure theatrical engagements: £5 per week for the top four, £4 for the next four, and £3 for the subsequent four.

  • On November 9, 1908, Eva Chaplin, the plaintiff, submitted her photo, application, and £1 to the "Daily Express" as part of this offer.

  • Due to an overwhelming response, the offer's terms were altered on December 9, 1908. Voting readers in ten UK districts would choose candidates, and the defendant would then pick twelve from the top five in each district.

  • On December 10, 1908, the plaintiff's photo, ranking as No. 9 in her district, was published as the top vote-getter. On January 4, 1909, the defendant's agent invited the plaintiff to meet Seymour Hicks at the Aldwych Theatre. The plaintiff, performing in Dundee, received the letter on January 6.

  • Despite the plaintiff's alleged three letters and attempts to secure appointments, she received no response. On March 4, 1910, the plaintiff initiated legal action, seeking damages for missing a valuable professional engagement.

  • The defendant argued that no contract existed, the statement of claim lacked merit, and the alleged damage was too remote.

  • The trial revealed the defendant had not reasonably provided the plaintiff with an opportunity for selection. The jury awarded £100 in damages. The learned judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff, awarding £100. The defendant appealed the judgment.

JUDGEMENT

  • In assessing damages in breach of contract cases, the key factor is whether the damage was a foreseeable consequence of the breach, as contemplated by the parties. If it was reasonably foreseeable, it's not considered too remote.

  • The complexity of calculating damages precisely doesn't excuse the jury from their duty to assess them to the best of their ability. For instance, if someone loses the chance to compete for a valuable prize due to a breach, the jury must determine the value of that lost opportunity.

  • However, not all breach of contract cases can be left to the jury for damage assessment. In cases where losses depend entirely on the unrestricted choices of another party, quantifying the loss may be impossible.

COMMENTARY

  • An actor and Aldwych Theatre lessee, Seymour Hicks, made an unusual offer through the "Daily Express," inviting aspiring actresses to submit photos for potential theatrical roles. Eva Chaplin applied but faced complications when the process changed to involve public voting due to the overwhelming response.

  • Despite ranking first, Chaplin missed a crucial meeting due to a late letter. She sued Hicks for damages, resulting in a £100 award by the jury. The central issue was whether her claim was valid, focusing on the concept of "remoteness of damage" in contract breaches.

  • The judgment clarified that damage's remoteness depends on foreseeability. If it could reasonably be anticipated under the contract, it's not considered remote. Even in complex cases, the jury's duty to assess damages was emphasized. When cases involve missed opportunities for valuable prizes, the jury must determine the lost opportunity's value.

  • Vaughan Williams, LJ, noted exceptions where damages couldn't be assessed, particularly when the loss depended solely on another party's choices. This case highlights foreseeability, reasonable measures, and intricate damage assessments in contract breach cases, with recognition of exceptions when losses are beyond the aggrieved party's control.

ORIGINAL ANALYSIS

  • Defendant’s breach of contract prevented P from taking part in the final round of a beauty contest where 12 of the final 50 would win a prize. CA upheld the finding that her chances of winning were 25% and she was made an award on this basis.

  • Where Defendant has suffered harm from a breach of contract, it is necessary to provide compensation, no matter how hard it may be to come up with the precise value of the compensation. 

Fletcher Moulton LJ

  • Where a man has an opportunity to win something from a limited class of people, guaranteed to him by contract, he has something of value.

  • Thus the jury has a duty to estimate the value of this opportunity.

Williams LJ

  • He rejects the impossibility of assessment argument (that it is impossible to say what harm has been done since there was no guarantee of her winning), saying that “the jury must do the best they can, and it may be that the amount of their verdict will really be a matter of guesswork”

----

Rather than approach by awarding her damages on the basis that she might have won (which really is impossible and, if she wouldn’t have won, would cause Defendant to pay for no harm caused), they should ask what is the inherent value of being able to compete i.e. take the “loss of amenity” approach from Ruxley: What was the value to Plaintiff of being able to partake in the final, in terms of enjoyment, regardless of whether or not she would have won. 

Any comments or edits about this case? Get in touch

For Further Study on Chaplin v Hicks

GDL Tort Law Notes
591 total pages
90 purchased

A collection of the best GDL notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an O...

Contract Law Notes
1,511 total pages
743 purchased

Contract law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...

Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.

Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️

Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.

Get Started

Related Product Samples

These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.

Contract LawRemedies For Breach Pq Notes Notes (25 pages)
GDL Tort LawRemoteness Notes (5 pages)
Claim every advantage to get a first in law
Contract Law Notes
1,511 total pages
743 purchased

Contract law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...