Jackson v Horizon Holidays [1975] 1 WLR 1468
Judgement for the case Jackson v Horizon Holidays
Table Of Contents
Plaintiff contracted Defendant for a family holiday which went wrong for all members of the family and Plaintiff was entitled to damages.
It was accepted that only Plaintiff could sue (he paid and contracted the whole holiday for his own and his family’s benefit, NOT as an agent for the family) but it was disputed whether he could claim damages for all the family or only for himself.
CA upheld the damages awarded, but Denning LJ did it on the basis that it was to compensate for damages to the whole family, whereas James LJ said it was solely to compensate for damages to Plaintiff.
Orr LJ said “I agree” but it wasn’t clear with whom he agreed (McKendrick). Hence this isn’t an authority for the proposition that a principal can sue for the loss suffered by TP beneficiary from the contract.
RELATED CASES
For Further Study on Jackson v Horizon Holidays
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 StartedSimilar Cases
Related Product Samples
These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
Contract law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...
Since 2010, Oxbridge Notes has been a trusted education marketplace, supplying high-quality materials from top achievers at universities like Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, and Yale.