Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 12:45

From: Jason Neyers

Subject: Lumley v Gye and greater damages

It doesn't, which is one of the reasons why I have a gut feeling that the OBG answer is wrong. I think I have come to the conclusion that the liability in Lumley is primary but that the right protected is special in some respects. What I am working on now is what is the best interpretative theory of this primary right, the one offered by Robert Stevens (in Torts & Rights), Kant's explanation or that offered by Benson/Sayre.

Sincerely,

----- Original Message -----
From: Janet O'Sullivan 
Date: Monday, April 14, 2008 7:35 am
Subject: Re: ODG: Lumley v Gye & greater damages
To: Neil Foster  
Cc: Jason Neyers

Dear all,

But how would recovery of a greater amount from the tortfeasor (envisaged in Lumley v Gye itself) square with the House of Lords OBG explanation of Lumley v Gye as secondary to the primary liability for breach of contract?

-- 
Jason Neyers  
Associate Professor of Law
Faculty of Law  
University of Western Ontario
N6A 3K7
(519) 661-2111 x. 88435

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>