Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Performance Cars v Abraham

[1962] 1 QB 33

Case summary last updated at 15/01/2020 18:13 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Performance Cars v Abraham

P had a car collision with X that meant P’s car needed a respray. He then collided with D, through D’s negligence, which would of itself have necessitated a respray. P sued D for the cost of a respray. CA ruled that since P’s car already needed a respray, the need for it did not flow from D’s negligence and therefore he would not be liable. Lord Evershed MR says to allow P to claim for damage that merely “would have” been caused by D in other circumstances is absurd: suppose A chips my windscreen so I have to get a new one and then you chip it: surely you shouldn’t compensate me because there is no extra damage caused by your action. 

Performance Cars v Abraham crops up in following areas of law