untitled

64 Chapter 2Making a contract

In Jacksonv Horizon Holidays Ltd (1975)the Court of Appeal allowed a husband who had

booked a holiday for himself and his wife to recover substantial damages for both himself

and his wife when the holiday proved to be disastrous. The House of Lords later commented

that this decision was correct and suggested that some contracts, such as those to provide

holidays or to book a taxi, call for special treatment. As regards package holidays, the

Figure 2.5 Tweddle vAtkinson and Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd vSelfridge & Co

Daniels and Daniels vR White & Sons Ltd and Tarbard (1938)

Mr Daniels bought a bottle of lemonade. Both Mr and Mrs Daniels drank the lemonade,

which was contaminated with carbolic acid. They were both injured by this and both sued

the manufacturers of the lemonade for the tort of negligence. Mr Daniels also sued the

retailer of the lemonade for breach of contract.

HeldThe manufacturers were not liable for the tort of negligence. They showed that they

operated a ‘fool proof’ system and so it could not be proved that they had failed to take

reasonable care. Mr Daniels succeeded in his claim for breach of contract. The retailer had

to pay damages to compensate Mr Daniels for his injuries, but did not have to pay damages

in respect of Mrs Daniels’s injuries. The damages for breach of contract were only to com-

pensate for the loss caused to Mr Daniels. Mrs Daniels could not sue the retailer for breach

of contract because she had no contract with the retailer.