Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. With great respect to the learned Judges, the rule laid down by them cannot be defended on principle. One breach of a contract can only furnish one cause of action and no more. Actual loss when it occurs is only one of the results of the breach and is not an act of the party who breaks a contract and can, therefore, create no second cause of action. It is a pity that the case of Battley v. Faulkner 3 B. and Ad. 288 : 22 R.R. 390 was not brought to the notice of the learned Judges. That case is a clear authority for the proposition, that consequential damage arising, from the breach gives no new cause of action. The claim in that case was for compensation for a breach of a contract brought within six years from the date on which the damages occurred but beyond six years from the breach. The suit was held to be barred by time. Bayley, J., said: If the plaintiff in this case had released the defendant from the breaches of contract, that release would have been a bar to the present action for the special damages subsequently accruing and this shows that the foundation of the action is the breach of contract. It was, therefore, from the period when the contract was broken that the cause of action accrued, and as that happened more than six years before the commencement of the present action; I think the non-suit was right." Holroyd, J., said: "It is said, however, that although the action might be maintained upon the breach of promise, yet the damage sustained forms a substantive ground of action: but it cannot be so considered in this form of action."