Editing Damages (section)

===Quantum (measure) of damages===
{{also|Measure of damages under English law}}
Liability for payment of an award of damages is established when the claimant proves, on the balance of probabilities, that a defendant's wrongful act caused a tangible, harm, loss or injury to the plaintiff. Once that threshold is met, the plaintiff is entitled to some amount of recovery for that loss or injury. No recovery is not an option. The court must then assess the amount of compensation attributable to the harmful acts of the defendant.<ref>See, e.g., the U.S. Supreme Court cases of {{cite web|title=The Conqueror, 166 US 110, 17 S. Ct. 510, 41 L. Ed. 937 (1897)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14810759345779336716|website=Google Scholar|access-date=19 September 2017}} and {{cite web|title=Palmer v. Connecticut Railway & Lighting Co., 311 US 544, 61 S. Ct. 379, 85 L. Ed. 336 (1941)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4887043836848493442|website=Google Scholar|access-date=19 September 2017}}</ref> The amount of damages a plaintiff would recover is usually measured on a "loss of bargain" basis, also known as expectation loss,<ref>airSlate Legal Forms, Inc. d/b/a USLegal, [https://definitions.uslegal.com/l/loss-of-bargain/ Loss of Bargain Law and Legal Definition], accessed 10 December 2022</ref> or "economic loss". This concept reflects the difference between "the value of what has been received and its value as represented".<ref>Supreme Court of Texas, [https://casetext.com/case/nobility-homes-of-texas-inc-v-shivers Nobility Homes of Texas Inc. v. Shivers], ''Casetext'', published 5 October 1977, accessed 10 December 2022</ref>

Damages are usually assessed at the date of the wrongful act, but in [[England and Wales]], Pelling J has observed that this is not the case if justice requires the assessment of damages to be calculated at some other date. In ''Murfin v Ford Campbell'', an agreement had been entered into whereby company shares were exchanged for [[loan note]]s, which could only be redeemed if certain profit thresholds had been achieved in the relevant accounting years. As the thresholds were not met, the loan notes were not redeemable, but at the date of the advisors' breach of contract this could not be known, only the loan notes' [[face value]] could be known. The conclusion was that in this case valuation could not be done until after the profit performance became known. In his judgement Pelling also referred to the case of ''[[Smith New Court Securities Ltd v Scrimgeour Vickers (Asset Management) Ltd]]'', a case where continuing [[misrepresentation]] affected the appropriate date for damages to be assessed.<ref>England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division), [https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2011/1475.html Murfin v Campbell (2011) EWHC 1475 (Ch)], paragraphs 8, 12, delivered 22 June 2011, accessed 27 November 2022</ref>