The Contract between Darcy and Wickers - Essay Example

 Darcy has a cause of action against Wickers in this case. As borne out by the facts, the two entered into a contract by which Wickers are to withhold any information he may have known about the life of Kitty while under his custody in consideration of the 50,000 pounds which Darcy will give to him. The object of the contract therefore is for the peace of mind of Darcy not to be molested by the adverse public image on him, Kitty may bring in the event the life of the latter is exposed to the public. This contract does not in any way violate the law, public policy or public moral. Rather, the contract forged by Darcy and Wickers is the law between them. When Wickers reneged in his obligation not to do a certain act, i.e., to withhold from the public his knowledge of the life of Kitty, he has already incurred liability therefore. However, it is worthy to mention that the general rule is that compensation is only awarded for financial loss resulting from the breach of contract (Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co (1880) 5 AppCas 25, 39, Lord Blackburn cited in Farley v Skinner, [2001] UKHL 49, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd011011/farley-1.htm). Moreover, Bingham LJ enunciated in Watts v Morrow ([1991] 1 WLR 1421) that: “A contract-breaker is not in general liable for any distress, frustration, anxiety, displeasure, vexation, tension or aggravation which his breach of contract may cause to the innocent party. This rule is not, I think, founded on the assumption that such reactions are not foreseeable, which they surely are or may be, but on considerations of policy” (p. 1445, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd011011/farley-1.htm). Nevertheless, the same case law provided for the exception to the general rule to wit: “But the rule is not absolute. Where the very object of a contract is to provide pleasure, relaxation, peace of mind or freedom from molestation, damages will be awarded if the fruit of the contract is not provided or if the contrary result is procured instead. If the law did not cater for this exceptional category of case it would be defective.” It is clear in the instant case that that the cause of action of Darcy against Wickers will succeed in the courts of law. There is a long line of cases which will be mentioned below which can be applied in pari materia to the instant case. For one, the dicta in Farley v. Skinner ([2001] UKHL 49) is illuminating to wit: “The broader legal context of Watts v Morrow [1991] 1 WLR 1421 must be borne in mind. The exceptional category of cases where the very object of a contract is to provide pleasure, relaxation, peace of mind or freedom from molestation is not the product of Victorian contract theory but the result of evolutionary developments in case law from the 1970s. Several decided cases informed the description given by Bingham LJ of this category. The first was the decision of the sheriff court in Diesen v Samson 1971 SLT (Sh Ct) 49. A photographer failed to turn up at a wedding, thereby leaving the couple without a photographic record of an important and happy day. The bride was awarded damages for her distress and disappointment. In the celebrated case of Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd [1973] QB 233, the plaintiff recovered damages for mental distress flowing from a disastrous holiday resulting from a travel agent's negligent representations: compare also Jackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd [1975] 1 WLR 1468. In Heywood v Wellers [1976] QB 446, the plaintiff instructed solicitors to bring proceedings to restrain a man from molesting her. The solicitors negligently failed to take appropriate action with the result that the molestation continued. The Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiff damages for mental distress and upset. While apparently not cited in Watts v Morrow [1991] 1 WLR 1421, Jackson v Chrysler Acceptances Ltd [1978] RTR 474 was decided before Watts v Morrow. In Jackson's case the claim was for damages in respect of a motor car which did not meet the implied condition of merchantability in section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1893. The buyer communicated to the seller that one of his reasons for buying the car was a forthcoming touring holiday in France. Problems with the car spoilt the holiday. The disappointment of a spoilt holiday was a substantial element in the award sanctioned by the Court of Appeal.” (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd011011/farley-1.htm) Thus, Darcy may pursue against Wickers on the ground of Breach of Contract resulting to personal injury. Coming now to the possibility of Darcy’s claim relating to damages for mental distress, it is unequivocal that Darcy suffered mental distress by reason of the act of Wicker in disclosing to the media his knowledge of the life of Kitty under his custody. In the ordinary course of things, a politician with a fiancée whose family affair is better off insulated from the public would be greatly affected, with respect to his political career, in the event such family issue is exposed to the public. This is especially true when such disclosure is malicious and unwarranted, coupled with the fact that there is an agreement to the contrary. Corollary to this, the ruling in Campbell v. MGN Limited ([2004] UKHL 22 ) is noteworthy. In this case, Lord Nicholls pronounced that: “The common law or, more precisely, courts of equity have long afforded protection to the wrongful use of private information by means of the cause of action which became known as breach of confidence. A breach of confidence was restrained as a form of unconscionable conduct, akin to a breach of trust. Today this nomenclature is misleading. The breach of confidence label harks back to the time when the cause of action was based on improper use of information disclosed by one person to another in confidence. To attract protection the information had to be of a confidential nature. But the gist of the cause of action was that information of this character had been disclosed by one person to another in circumstances 'importing an obligation of confidence' even though no contract of non-disclosure existed: see the classic exposition by Megarry J in Coco v A N Clark (Engineers) Ltd [1969] RPC 41, 47-48. The confidence referred to in the phrase 'breach of confidence' was the confidence arising out of a confidential relationship. This cause of action has now firmly shaken off the limiting constraint of the need for an initial confidential relationship. In doing so it has changed its nature. In this country this development was recognised clearly in the judgment of Lord Goff of Chieveley in Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [1990] 1 AC 109, 281. Now the law imposes a 'duty of confidence' whenever a person receives information he knows or ought to know is fairly and reasonably to be regarded as confidential. Even this formulation is awkward. The continuing use of the phrase 'duty of confidence' and the description of the information as 'confidential' is not altogether comfortable. Information about an individual's private life would not, in ordinary usage, be called 'confidential'. The more natural description today is that such information is private. The essence of the tort is better encapsulated now as misuse of private information.” (p. 13-14, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldjudgmt/jd040506/campbe-1.htm) Although the above cited case does not fall squarely on the present case, the principle enunciated is equally applicable. Wickers, in disclosing to the media an otherwise private information has committed what was termed in Campbell as misuse of private information. The cause of action of Darcy is bolstered by the contract Wickers have entered with him. True, one may argue that the person who should have suffered damages is Kitty and that the damage supposedly suffered by Darcy is remote. But that proposition is only relevant when there is no pre-existing contract on the non-disclosure of such information. At the risk of being repetitious, the cause of action of Darcy is anchored on breach of contract by Wickers and as a result, the former incurred damages although, no pecuniary damages are involved. With special reference to the case of Hadley v Baxendale (1854), the court said that: "Where two parties have made a contract which one of them has broken, the damages which the other party ought to receive in respect of such breach of contract should be such as may fairly and reasonably be considered either arising naturally, i.e. according to the usual course of things, from such breach of contract itself, or such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties, at the time they made the contract, as the probable result of the breach of it". (emphasis supplied) (http://www.brewerconsulting.co.uk/cases/CJ0506RR.htm) This is the seminal case on the remoteness of damages which a plaintiff may be allowed to pursue against the contract breaker. Applying the doctrine laid down in Hadley, The damage which Darcy would claim is not remote; in fact, it is the very essence of the contemplation of the parties when they executed the contract which Wickers broke. In closing, Wickers have breached what was agreed to and should be held liable with respect to Darcy. The contract is valid and Wickers would be estopped if he assails its validity on any ground sanctioned by law. Wickers should be held liable. Bibliography Campbell v. MGN Limited ([2004] UKHL 22 , p. 13-14, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldjudgmt/jd040506/campbe-1.htm, 16 Jan. 2008 Farley v. Skinner ([2001] UKHL 49, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd011011/farley-1.htm, 16 Jan. 2008 Hadley v Baxendale, 9 Exch. 341, 156 Eng. Rep. 145 (1854), http://www.brewerconsulting.co.uk/cases/CJ0506RR.htm, 16 Jan. 2008 Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co (1880) 5 AppCas 25, 39, Lord Blackburn cited in Farley v Skinner, [2001] UKHL 49, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd011011/farley-1.htm, 16 Jan. 2008 Watts v Morrow ([1991] 1 WLR 1421, p. 1445, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd011011/farley-1.htm, 16 Jan. 2008 Read More