28:
95:, a well-known actor and theatrical manager, invited women to submit their photographs to compete in a beauty contest where the winners would be chosen by the readers of one newspaper. He promised to give engagements as actresses to the winners. Ms Chaplin submitted her photograph and came first in her section, which entitled her to be considered for one of the twelve finalists. The notice reached her too late, and she was not able to make the appointment with Mr Hicks. She sued Mr Hicks for damages for breach of contract to compensate her for the loss of a chance to be selected for an engagement.
253:
370:
267:
413:
358:
162:
133:
313:
335:
41:
398:
174:
103:
The Court of Appeal upheld a £100 award for the loss of the chance at winning the contest, awarded by the jury.
347:
289:
403:
185:
126:
278:
408:
324:
209:
119:
106:
27:
81:
8:
109:
dismissed the arguments that the damages were either (1) too remote or (2) unassessable.
231:
84:
case, concerning the right to damages for loss of a chance after a breach of contract.
150:
220:
392:
242:
92:
301:
111:
390:
127:
163:Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal & Mining Co.
372:Dies v British Mining and Finance Corp Ltd
255:British Westinghouse Ltd v Underground Ltd
134:
120:
26:
414:Court of Appeal (England and Wales) cases
391:
314:Cooperative Insurance Ltd v Argyll Ltd
336:Wrotham Park Ltd v Parkside Homes Ltd
115:
42:Court of Appeal of England and Wales
13:
141:
14:
425:
175:Ruxley Electronics Ltd v Forsyth
1:
348:Surrey CC v Bredero Homes Ltd
290:Sky Petroleum v VIP Petroleum
268:Banco de Portugal v Waterlow
186:Anglia Television Ltd v Reed
7:
98:
10:
430:
279:Saamco v York Montague Ltd
399:English contract case law
367:
355:
344:
332:
321:
310:
298:
286:
275:
264:
250:
239:
228:
217:
206:
194:
182:
171:
159:
147:
68:
63:
55:
47:
37:
25:
20:
384:
325:Attorney General v Blake
210:Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd
87:
166:, 382 P 2d 109 (1962)
82:English contract law
404:1911 in British law
107:Vaughan Williams LJ
232:Hadley v Baxendale
69:Contract, remedies
381:
380:
154:(1848) 1 Exch 850
151:Robinson v Harman
73:
72:
32:Sir Seymour Hicks
421:
409:1911 in case law
373:
359:Rowland v Divall
256:
221:Farley v Skinner
136:
129:
122:
113:
112:
30:
18:
17:
429:
428:
424:
423:
422:
420:
419:
418:
389:
388:
387:
382:
377:
371:
363:
351:
340:
328:
317:
306:
294:
282:
271:
260:
254:
246:
235:
224:
213:
202:
198:Chaplin v Hicks
190:
178:
167:
155:
143:
140:
101:
90:
80:2 KB 786 is an
77:Chaplin v Hicks
33:
21:Chaplin v Hicks
12:
11:
5:
427:
417:
416:
411:
406:
401:
386:
383:
379:
378:
368:
365:
364:
356:
353:
352:
345:
342:
341:
333:
330:
329:
322:
319:
318:
311:
308:
307:
299:
296:
295:
287:
284:
283:
276:
273:
272:
265:
262:
261:
251:
248:
247:
240:
237:
236:
229:
226:
225:
218:
215:
214:
207:
204:
203:
195:
192:
191:
183:
180:
179:
172:
169:
168:
160:
157:
156:
148:
145:
144:
142:Remedies cases
139:
138:
131:
124:
116:
100:
97:
89:
86:
71:
70:
66:
65:
61:
60:
57:
53:
52:
49:
45:
44:
39:
35:
34:
31:
23:
22:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
426:
415:
412:
410:
407:
405:
402:
400:
397:
396:
394:
375:
374:
366:
361:
360:
354:
350:
349:
343:
338:
337:
331:
327:
326:
320:
316:
315:
309:
304:
303:
297:
292:
291:
285:
281:
280:
274:
270:
269:
263:
258:
257:
249:
245:
244:
243:The Achilleas
238:
234:
233:
227:
223:
222:
216:
212:
211:
205:
200:
199:
193:
188:
187:
181:
177:
176:
170:
165:
164:
158:
153:
152:
146:
137:
132:
130:
125:
123:
118:
117:
114:
110:
108:
104:
96:
94:
93:Seymour Hicks
85:
83:
79:
78:
67:
62:
58:
54:
50:
46:
43:
40:
36:
29:
24:
19:
16:
369:
357:
346:
334:
323:
312:
300:
288:
277:
266:
252:
241:
230:
219:
208:
197:
196:
184:
173:
161:
149:
105:
102:
91:
76:
75:
74:
15:
302:Patel v Ali
51:16 May 1911
393:Categories
339:1 WLR 798
293:1 WLR 576
376:1 KB 724
362:2 KB 500
201:2 KB 786
99:Judgment
64:Keywords
59:2 KB 786
56:Citation
189:1 QB 60
48:Decided
305:Ch 283
259:AC 673
385:Notes
88:Facts
38:Court
395::
135:e
128:t
121:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
.svg)