Rachel Owned the Right to Mine for Gold on a Particular

Question

Examlex · Accepted Answer

The Answer is Siddharth will not succeed in his action against Rachel and he will not receive any compensatory damages.The tort of deceit is not actionable per se.It is committed only if the plaintiff suffers a loss as a result of relying upon the defendant's false statement.

The idea of a "loss" can be defined in different ways in different parts of private law.

In the law of contract, the plaintiff may suffer a loss if an event turns out to be less profitable than the defendant promised.A breach of contract therefore supports compensation in the form of expectation damages.The plaintiff is entitled to be placed in the position that they would have enjoyed if the contract had unfolded as promised.In this case, Siddharth expected to receive a net profit of $250 000.His actual net profit was only $10 000.He therefore has been disappointed by the amount of his return not being $240 000.A claim in deceit is not, however, a claim for breach of contract.Siddharth therefore is not entitled to have his expectations monetarily fulfilled.(He might, of course, be entitled to receive expectation damages if he establishes a concurrent action for breach of contract.)

In tort, "loss" is reckoned not with regard to the position that the plaintiff expected to enjoy in the future, but rather with regard to the position that they enjoyed before the wrongful event.Tort damages, in other words, are backward-looking, rather than forward-looking.Siddharth's current position is not, however, worse than his original position.It is, to the contrary, better by $10 000.He therefore cannot succeed in his claim for deceit and he is not entitled to receive compensatory damages in tort.

Rachel Owned the Right to Mine for Gold on a Particular

Definitions: