My personal Opinion

Name of Student

Name of Institution

My Opinion

The argument of the Court of Appeal in this case is worthwhile. I concur with the Court that the jury and the District Court Judge erred in the award of damages. Of the three claims by Mrs. Clarkson, only the breach of contract claim stands out. The other two claims on fraud and breach of the Unfair Trade Practices Act were not sufficiently proven by the Plaintiff. Enquiry into damages has been a difficult area for most judges. This is because it has not been possible to arrive at one principle for awarding damages. Civil cases require judges to approximate sums of money for the loss or inconvenience suffered by the Plaintiff due to a violation of the Plaintiff’s legally enforceable interest or right. The general position on damages requires that once the Plaintiff successfully proves the facts on which damage approximation is based, the court is bound to award a reasonable sum to the Plaintiff as damages (unless public policy bars the court from awarding damages on that subject). Damages should be neither too high nor too low regarding the circumstances of a case and most importantly, courts should not award damages for sentimental reasons (Davison, 2008).

The fraud claim fails just as the Court of Appeal enunciates. The element of “deliberate or intentional” is necessary to establish any fraud claim. The Plaintiff did not reach that threshold and could not have reached it following the true picture of the facts. Moreover, the Plaintiff did not meet the threshold of violating the Unfair Trade Practices Act: the tendency to deceive. Because punitive damages are possible only where other damages such as actual and compensatory damages exist, the punitive damage in this case would also face a reversal now that the validity of two major damages are disputed. The Court of Appeal is, therefore, right to reverse the District Court’s decision in part. Perhaps the case of Pulliam Investment Co., Inc. v. Cameo Properties Banner Equities, Inc. Independence Construction Company Freedom Savings and Loan Association Independence Investment Company, 810 F.2d 1282 (4th Cir. 1987) could shed more light on the award of damages for fraud and violation of the Unfair Trade Practices Act.

References

Davison, R. P. (2008). Evaluating Contract Claims. Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.