Baltic Shipping Company v Dillon
Judgement of the High Court of Australia / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Baltic Shipping Company v Dillon?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
SHOW ALL QUESTIONS
This article is about the court case. For the poet, see Mikhail Lermontov. For the ocean liner, see MS Mikhail Lermontov.
Baltic Shipping Company v Dillon,[1] the Mikhail Lermontov case, is a leading Australian contract law case, on the incorporation of exclusion clauses and damages for breach of contract or restitution for unjust enrichment.
Quick Facts Court, Decided ...
Baltic Shipping Company v Dillon | |
---|---|
Court | High Court of Australia |
Decided | 10 February 1993 |
Citation(s) | [1993] HCA 4, (1993) 176 CLR 344 |
Case history | |
Prior action(s) |
|
Subsequent action(s) | Dillon v Baltic Shipping Co [No 2] [1993] NSWCA 83 |
Court membership | |
Judge(s) sitting | Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron, McHugh JJ |
Keywords | |
Exclusion clause, personal injury, breach of contract, non-pecuniary loss, restitutionary damages, total failure of consideration |
Close