Damages for breach of contract

This practical book deals solely with those damages arising as a breach of contract, where the aim of the damages is to place the plaintiff in the same position as if the contract had been performed. The book is split into three main parts: general principles such as limitations, causation, remoteness, mitigation and contributory negligence; specific breaches, such as sale of goods, supply of services, travel contracts and sale of land; and general issues and procedures. The only authoritative practitioner work focusing on this area, it provides a high-level, comprehensive and practical text.

Loss of chance and the evaluation of hypothetical's in contractual claims

Analyses how to calculate damages for the loss of an opportunity by reason of a breach of contract, in the light of the House of Lords judgment in Gregg v Scott concerning clinical negligence. Discusses whether different principles apply to contract claims and torts.

Accountability, organisational learning and risks to patient safety in England: conflict or compromise?

This article examines the current risk regulation regime, within the English National Health Service (NHS), by investigating the two, sometimes conflicting, approaches to risk embodied within the field of policies towards patient safety. The first approach focuses on promoting accountability and is built on legal principles surrounding negligence and competence. The second approach focuses on promoting learning from previous mistakes and near-misses, and is built on the development of a ‘safety culture’. Previous work has drawn attention to problems associated with risk-based regulation when faced with the dual imperatives of accountability and organisational learning. The article develops this by considering whether the NHS patient safety regime demonstrates the coexistence of two different risk regulation regimes, or merely one regime with contradictory elements. It uses the heuristic device of ‘institutional logics’ to examine the coexistence of and interrelationship between ‘organisational learning’ and ‘accountability’ logics driving risk regulation in health care.

'He was like a zombie':off-label prescription of antipsychotic drugs in dementia

This paper explores the legal position of the off-label prescription of antipsychotic medications to people with dementia who experience behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD). Dementia is a challenging illness, and BPSD can be very difficult for carers to manage, with evidence that this contributes to carer strain and can result in the early institutionalisation of people with dementia. As a result, the prescription of antipsychotic and other neuroleptic medications to treat BPSD has become commonplace, in spite of these drugs being untested and unlicensed for use to treat older people with dementia. In recent years, it has become apparent through clinical trials that antipsychotic drugs increase the risk of cerebrovascular accident (stroke) and death in people with dementia. In addition, these types of medication also have other risk factors for people with dementia, including over-sedation and worsening of cognitive function. Drawing on recent questionnaire (n = 185), focus group (n = 15), and interview (n = 11) data with carers of people with dementia, this paper explores the law relating to off-label prescription, and the applicability of medical negligence law to cases where adverse events follow the use of antipsychotic medication. It is argued that the practice of off-label prescribing requires regulatory intervention in order to protect vulnerable patients. © The Author [2012]. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.

Pharmacy legislation:public protector or professional hindrance?

Pharmacy originates from a background of medication compounding and supply. More recently, this role has developed away from an absolute focus on the supply of pharmaceuticals with, for example, the advent of pharmacist prescribing. Nevertheless, for a majority of the profession, medication supply remains a core activity. Regulation of the pharmacy profession is now the responsibility of the General Pharmaceutical Council, although up until 27 September 2010, this role fell to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB). Before this change, in one of the most high-profile legal cases involving a pharmacist in a professional capacity, R. v Lee, a pharmacist was prosecuted firstly for gross negligence manslaughter, later revised to offences under the Medicines Act 1968, for a single error relating to medication supply, and was given a suspended custodial sentence. Offences against sections 64 or 85 of the Medicines Act are absolute offences and there is no due diligence defence. Prosecution of a pharmacist for the supply of incorrect medication may seem a measured course of action to protect the public from the wrongful supply of potent pharmacotherapeutic agents; however, further analysis of Lee indicates that this approach may be counterproductive. An appeal of the original conviction in the Lee case has resulted in a clarification of the interpretation of section 85(5); however currently, prosecutions under section 64 are still a possibility. Owing to the seriousness of a criminal conviction under section 64, this continuation will potentially stifle the profession's ability to learn from dispensing errors. © The Author [2013]. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.