减少损失（Mitigationofdamages）-英国合同法

减少损失（Mitigation）
1 序言
受害方向违约方或侵权方索赔损失时，被告常常会争辩道“即使我违约（或侵权），可是我违约本来也不会造成这么大后果啊!是你没有采取合理措施减少损失，才会有这么多的损失，我只能赔你这部分，其他一概不赔!”的确，除了“损失的遥远性”（remoteness）与“因果关系”(causation)的局限外，还有受害方减少损失的责任，而且，这三个局限赔偿的大原则都是有相互的密切关系的。

在减少损失的大原则下，每个受害方都应该合理地去减少自己的损失，如果没有合理减少损失的话，他就不能把自己应能减少而没有去减少的那部分损失向违约方索赔回来。

这一大原则是有几个方面的大道理去支持的，如下：（一）与因果关系有一定的关系，就是违约方/侵权方虽然有赔偿责任，但受害方没有合理减少损失而造成的部分额外损失与原来的违约或侵权没有直接的因果关系。

（二）与损失的遥远性也有一定关系，就是违约方/侵权方是没有料想到受害方是不会合理减少损失的，所以额外的损失在本质上是太遥远。

（三）要求受害方去合理减少损失是为了避免整体的经济损失与浪费。

（四）这涉及了公平对待双方当事人，就是受害人如果想多花钱，他可以自己掏荷包，没有理由要违约方/侵权方去承担他的奢侈行为。

这方面可去节录Pearson大法官在Darbishire v. Warran（1963）1 WLR 1067所说如下：“he is fully entitled to be as extravagant as he please but not at the expense of the defendant.”
针对减少损失的大原则，最权威的说法是在British Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co Ltd v. Underground Electric Rys. Co of London Ltd (1912) AC 673先例中，贵族院的Viscount Haldane说：
“The fundamental basis (of damage assessment) is thus compensation for pecuniary loss naturally flowing from the breach; but this first principle is qualified by a second, which imposes on a plaintiff the duty of taking all reasonable steps to mitigate the loss of consequent on the breach, and debars him from claiming any part of damage which is due to his neglect to take such steps.”(在计算损失，最基本的道理是去以金钱赔偿来自违约的损失，但这是第一个大道理，要受到第二个大道理的约束，就是强加在原告受害方的头上一个责任
去采取所有的合理行动减少因为违约所带来的合理损失，并禁止他去索赔任何部分由于其疏忽没有采取这些行动而造成的损失。

)
要求受害方去合理减少损失的道理也很简单，可去以一个简单例子说明。

比如买方因为市场价格下跌或己方原因拒绝收货，卖方应当合理尽速地在市场上把货售转售出去以取回一定货价。

而不应任由该票货物闲置而导致最后霉坏不值一文，甚至还有一大笔的仓储费用与弃置处理费用，而这种情况在现实中会出现，特别是在受害方意气用事，明显不可行但仍坚持买方让步的情况下。

这很容易客观看到如果要求买方（即使毁约的责任是100%的明确）赔偿全部货价并加上各种费用，是非常不公平的。

这里当然会涉及了每一个案件不同的事实，例如同样造成这一个严重的结果是由于卖方没有办法去合理找到替代的买家，例如是该票货物比较特殊，根本没有其他人要，或当时遇上金融海啸根本没有市场或替代买方。

这一来，要求买方承担所有的损失就客观看是理所当然了，因为卖方有设法去合理减少损失，只是没有成果罢了。

又例如该票货物（例如是一台特殊制造的机器）根本没有市场或找不到替代买方，也不代表卖方没有合理去减少损失的做法。

例如去尽快安排把货物转运回自己的工厂，或是以废铁价格处理掉，或是以大幅度减价去出售给原来的买方（但不放弃卖方将来索赔的权利：Payzu Ltd v. Saunders [1919] 2 KB 581; A.B.D. [Metals & Waste] Ltd v. Anglo Chemical & Ore Company Ltd [1955]) 2 Lloyd‘s Rep 456），等等。

反正就是能够合理去减少损失，即使成效不会太大，受害方还是应该这样做。

在《1979年英国货物销售法》之50 (3)是针对买方对卖方的毁约，也就是本段所介绍的情况，就说明表面的损失计算就是根据合约价格与市场价格的差别，只要是在违约当时有一个可供买卖的市场，如下：
―50(3) Where there is an available market for the goods in question the measure of damage is prima facie to be ascertained by the difference between the contract price and the market or current price at the time or times when the goods ought to have been accepted or (if no time was fixed for acceptance) at the time of the refusal to accept.（如果有关货物是有一个可供买卖的市场，表面的损失证据是去根据合约价格与买方拒绝接受货物当天的市场价格。

）
背后的大道理就是要求受害方应该尽快去合理减少损失，而只要有一个可供买卖的市场，去在该市场把货物处理掉是最合理的做法。

同时，通过这样的处理，也可以去找
出受害方实际的损失，也就是找出毁约的买方应该负责赔偿的金额，因为通过市场出售给替代买方而取得的价格是最好的指标去找出与合约价格的差价。

正如The ―Clyde‖(1856) Swab 23先例中，Dr. Lushington大法官是这样说：“It is the market price which the Court looks to, and nothing else, as the value of the property. It is an old saying, ‗The worth of a thing is the price it will bring‘.”
在进一步探讨减少损失的大原则之前，不妨先去简单介绍一下British Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co Ltd v. Underground Electric Rys. Co of London Ltd (1912) AC 673与Darbishire v. W arran（1963）1 WLR 1067的案情。

在British Westinghouse先例，涉及了一座蒸汽机的出售，用在火车的车头。

由于该蒸汽机不符合买卖合约的要求，本身在动力与经济的操作上有缺陷，这导致了受害方买方在使用了一段时间后购买另一台蒸汽机作为替代。

该替代的蒸汽机是一个不同的型号，有更大的动力，导致了在操作上所带来的利润比原来一台蒸汽机即使在符合合约规定的情况下也更高。

在后来的诉讼中，受害方作为原告索赔替代蒸汽机的价格以及其他有关的损失。

但并不成功，因为判是替代蒸汽机所带来的更高利润是足够对冲买方的损失的。

在Darbishire v. Warran先例中，涉及了原告把被告损坏的一辆车子去进行修理，但修理是不符合经济的做法的。

上诉庭判是被告只需要负责赔偿损坏车子所带来的市场价格的减损（diminution in market value），而不是高昂的修理费用。

2 减少损失的三个规则
损害赔偿中，受害方减少损失的“责任”实际上包括三个规则：第一，如果受害方可以采取合理行动减少损失而没有采取，则对其所受损害的赔偿只限于若他采取了合理行动仍然会承受的那部分的损失；第二，一方违约/毁约后，如果受害方采取的行动事实上避免或减少了的损失部分，那么损失赔偿亦要相应免除或扣减。

既使受害方所作所为已超出了合理减少损失所要求的范围，他也不应去赚一笔；第三，受害方为减少损失采取合理行动而作出的花费，成功与否，可以得到赔偿。

这方面可以去节录《Chitty on Contract》（2008，30th ed）之26-101段：
“Mitigation. There are three rules often referred to under the comprehensive heading
of ‗mitigation‘: they will be considered in turn. First, the claimant cannot recover damages for any part of his loss consequent upon the defendant‘s breach of contract which the claimant could have avoided by taking reasonable steps. Secondly, if the claimant in fact avoids or mitigates his loss consequent upon the defendant‘s breach, he cannot recover for such avoided loss, even though the steps he took were more than could be reasonably required of him under the first rule. Thirdly, where the claimant incurs loss or expense in the course of taking reasonable steps to mitigate the loss resulting from the defendant‘s breach, the claimant may recover this further loss or expense from the defendant.”
这三条规则在著名先例British Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co Ltd v. Underground Electric Rys. Co of London Ltd (1912) AC 673中有针对，第一条规则是这样说：“…imposes on a plaintiff the duty of taking all reasonable steps to mitigate the loss consequent on the breach, and debars him from claiming any party of the damage which is due to his neglect to take such steps.”而第二条规则是这样说：“When in the course of his business [the claimant] has taken action arising out of the transaction, which action has diminished his loss, the effect in actual diminution of the loss he has suffered may be taken into account even though there was no duty on him to act.”至于第三条规则，基本上就是第一条规则的衍生。

3 减少损失是否受害方承担的责任？
Viscount Haldane在著名先例British Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co Ltd v. Underground Electric Rys. Co of London Ltd (1912) AC 673中，把减少损失称为是受害方的一种“责任”（duty of taking all reasonable steps to mitigate the loss of consequent on the breach），这一说法就带来了一些争议。

这是因为受害方如果有这一默示责任，就表示他没有去合理减少损失，就变了是违约并导致违约方/侵权方可以倒过来向他索赔。

但实际上没有减少损失的后果只是不让受害方去索赔由于他没有合理减损而造成的这部分额外的损失。

所以后来有不少先例对这一“责任”是有所澄清，说明并不是这样一回事。

首先，可去节录Pearson大法官在Darbishire v. Warran（1963）1 WLR 1067中所说：
“For the purposes of the present case it is important to appreciate the true nature of the
so-called ‗duty to mitigate the loss‘or ‗duty to minimise the damage‘. The plaintiff is not under any actual obligation to adopt the cheaper method: if he wishes to adopt the more expensive against the defendant or anyone else. The true meaning is that the plaintiff is not entitled to charge the defendant by way of damages with any greater sum than that which he reasonably needs to expend for the purpose of making good the loss.”
另在The“Solholt”（1983）1 Lloyd‘s Rep. 605先例的一审中，Staughton大法官是这样说：“In this context it is perhaps worth repeating that the duty to mitigate is not in any sense an obligation, contractual or otherwise. It is a condition attached to the right to claim damages: see Mr Justice Robert Goff in Koch Marine Inc. v. D‘Amico Societa Di Navigazione ARL (1980) 1 Lloyd‘ s Rep. 75”。

另在上诉庭，Donaldson大法官也有同样的说法：“A plaintiff is under no duty to mitigate his loss, despite the habitual use by the lawyers of the phrase ‗duty to mitigate‘. He is completely free to act as he judges to be in his best interests. On the other hand, a defendant is not liable for all loss suffered by the plaintiff in consequence of his so acting. A defendant is only liable for such part of the plaintiff‘s loss as is properly caused by the defendant‘s breach of duty.”
4 减少损失大原则与其他计算损失大原则之间的关系
较早时候已经提过，减少损失大原则与其他计算损失的大原则，包括损失的遥远性，损失的因果关系，甚至是整体减少浪费，都有一点关系。

但它们实际上还是不同的大原则或者说法，虽然它们经常会混淆在一起，例如在针对受害方穷困而无法减少损失的情况下，就往往与损失的遥远性分不开，这稍后在第9段会解释。

针对损失的遥远性，是不去理会受害方到底合理或者不合理，只要损失类别是订约的时候双方料想不到的，就会属于遥远的损失类别。

但减少损失就非常讲究受害方的合理性。

它们之间的不同可以举两个先例作为介绍，第一个是The ―Borag‖ (1981) 1 WLR 274先例。

案情涉及了被告错误扣押原告的船舶，逼使原告提供银行担保去放船。

但由于原告的银行资信很差，导致了要去支付给银行全部担保金额的利息，Denning勋爵说从来没有听说过银行有这么严格的做法。

在上诉庭判是这一损失属于太遥远的损失类别，与受害方是否减少损失无关。

Denning勋爵说：
“It seems to me, as a matter of common sense and common law, that expenditure made to obtain the release of a vessel from arrest should be regarded as an item of damages, and not as mitigation. It is the natural way of dealing with it.
They are entitled to all the reasonable expenditure which they incurred as a result of the wrongful arrest and getting the ship released: but not ‗unheard-of‘overdraft interest of this kind.”
另一个是Simpson v. Grove Tomkins & Co (1982) Sol J 347先例，案情涉及了被告律师的疏忽（没有去与对方律师交换合约），导致了他原来的客户也是本案的原告失去了一个购买房屋的合约，并最终导致了该土地转售给第三人而原告再以非常高昂的价格去向第三人购买。

在第一审法院，认定原告这样做是合理的，并判被告要根据原告向第三人购买的价格去做出赔偿，金额是38,285英镑。

但去了上诉庭，判决被改变，认为损失赔偿只应该局限在该土地原来在合约同意的价格以及当时的市场价格，金额是20,542英镑。

至于去向第三人购买的高昂价格，被认为是太遥远的损失。

上诉庭这样说：“The question was whether the purchase of the identical property by the plaintiff, if the original agreement to purchase fell through, ought reasonably to have been foreseen by the defendant. The answer is no, even if it was reasonable for the plaintiff to pay the price that he did.”这等于去判原告没有不去减少损失，因为在做法上合理。

但原告还是不能把向第三人购买的高昂价格向被告取回，这是因为损失遥远性的局限。

减少损失大原则与整体社会减少浪费也不一定有关系，例如在最常见的案件涉及了受害方要去市场买进或者卖出，就通常不会涉及到整体社会的资源受到浪费，只会在受害方去放任货物闲置一隅导致最后霉坏不值一文才会导致整体社会的经济浪费。

有看法是减少损失的大原则主要还是与因果关系大原则的关系最密切。

这里可去节录上诉庭Potter大法官在Standard chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corp (2000) 2 Lloyd‘s Rep 511先例中所说：“The orthodox view is that the rule as to avoidable loss is merely an aspect of the fundamental principle of causation that a plaintiff can recover only in respect of damage caused by the defendant‘s wrong. The rule is… that the plaintiff… cannot recover for a loss avoidable by reasonable action on his own part, because, if he could
reasonably have avoided it, it would not be regarded as caused by the wrongdoer.”
但在Uzinterimpex JSC v Standard Bank (2008) 2 Lloyd‘s Rep 456，上诉庭的Moore-Bick大法官是这样说到减少损失与因果关系大原则：“There was a certain amount of debate in the course of argument about whether mitigation should be understood in terms of causation. For my own part I accept that it can be viewed in that way, but I am not sure that to do so adds greatly to one‘s understanding of the principles. If one analyses a failure to mitigate in terms of a new event which breaks the chain of causation between the wrongful act and the subsequent loss, it is necessary to recognize that the way in which the test of a new supervening cause has traditionally been formulated must be adapted or applied so as to take into account the relatively undemanding level of the duty to mitigate which the law imposes on the victim of a wrongful act. It may be that in this case it sharpens one‘s appreciation of the issues to view mitigation through the prism of causation…”
另是指《McGregor on Damages》（2009年，18th edn）之7-018段的最后一句有提到许多有关减少损失的先例，并没有去提到因果关系大原则（it is significant that the cases on the avoidable loss aspect of mitigation are not full of references to causation.）。

最后去一提的是减少损失的案例虽然大部分都涉及了违约，但同样的道理也适用在侵权，正如在The ―Liverpool‖ (1963) P 64 CA中，Merriman勋爵说：“The classic statement [namely of Lord Haldane], although made in an action arising out of a breach of contract, applies equally, mutatis mutandis, to tort.”
5 受害方怎样才算是合理减少损失
总地来说，受害方合理与否，是要根据每个不同的案件去看。

但由于受害方是无辜方，而且是经常面临毁约时是处于困难的境地。

所以，在受害方所作出的补救行为，通常会是以非常宽松的态度去对待。

有一个说法是受害方无需做任何特别的事情来去减少损失，除非这是他平时也会这样做的。

如Viscount Haldance在British Westinghouse Co. v. Undergound (1912) A. C. 637在689页所说：“the plaintiff is not under any obligation to do anything other than in the ordinary course of business.
另一个说法是强调这合理与否是从受害方的角度去看，而不是从毁约方，就已经可以被接受。

但也有明确的说法是受害方除了考虑自己的利益，也需要想到受害方的利益：Smailes v Hans Dessen (1906) 94 LT 492。

比较近期在这方面的先例有Darbishire v Warran (1963) 1 WLR 1067，上诉庭说：“The true question was whether the plaintiff acted reasonably as between himself and defendant and in view of his duty to mitigate the damages”。

另在贵族院先例的Dimond v Lovell (2002) 1 AC 384，判是受害方所高价租用的替代车辆虽然对他是合理，但不能向侵权方取回。

在现实中，受害方只要对他的补救行为有一个合理的解释，加上去保留一些证据（通常是文件证据）作为支持，就已经足够。

去宽松对待受害方，而不去动不动就质疑受害方到底有否合理减少损失，也符合常理。

原因是一般的受害方都知道无论毁约的责任如何的明确，将来的索赔损失也不会是一帆风顺。

撇开谁对谁错或其他的如诉讼风险等问题，光是一些客观环境就表示了能够对损失完全的到补偿的机会是不高的。

这些客观环境包括像实质得到的金钱补偿肯定会有时间上的延误，期间被告会发生经济问题甚至倒闭，也有可能发生受害方自己因为资金流通的问题而被迫接受被告提出很不足够的和解要约，等等。

但如果能够去合理减少损失，受害方就在发生毁约时马上可以得益，通常就是可以去少亏一点钱，而且这是不影响将来向毁约方的索赔。

而索赔的金额能够去减少，也表示向毁约方作为被告的诉讼行动会相对容易与快捷。

这表示在现实中没有去合理减少损失的案件，导致了受害方的部分损失无法向毁约方取回，往往是因为受害方明确误解了法律的地位，加上一定程度的意气用事或不现实面对问题，致使损失的扩大。

毕竟中国人也有说法是聪明的人能够大事化小，但愚昧的人往往就会把小事化大。

举例说，在货价上涨的时候，卖方根据买方的违约（例如是没有准时开出符合买卖合约要求的信用证或指定卸港）去终断买卖合约，然后马上向买方作出另一个新的要约（re-offer），但要求在原来的货价增加20%。

如果该货物是有市场的话，当时市场的价格还要高，例如是比原来的货价高40%。

如果买方是意气用事或不现实面对问题，坚持卖方要以原来的货价交货，导致最终一拍两散，会有可能是买方成为最终的输家。

在后来的诉讼，如果在责任方面判是终断买卖合约的卖方胜诉，就不存在买方可以向卖方索赔损失的问题。

但买方还是损失了一个机会可以比市场价格便宜20%（40%-20%）的货价根据一个新的买卖合约向卖方买回同一票货物。

但如果诉讼结
果是反过来，责任方面判是终断合约的卖方败诉（例如是判信用证并非是不符合买卖合约的要求），就会接下去针对受害方买方向卖方能够索赔的损失的计算。

表面看来，如果根据市场价格的计算规则（market rule assessment），就很容易算出这票货的损失，即合约价格与市场价格的差价，说是上涨了40%。

但由于违约的卖方曾经做出新的要约，如果买方接受的话，就可以减少一半的差价损失即原货价的20%。

这就会有危险被法院或仲裁庭判是一半的损失是由于买方没有合理减少损失所导致，应该去扣除。

当然，如果买方对没有接受卖方的新要约的有一个说得过去的理由，这就有机会被视为是合理。

例如，买方指出卖方的新要约是有其他不合理的条件，如要求买方必须放弃将来对他的指控或索赔；或是去规定了一个很短的回复时限及无条件接受，是买方这类型的公司（例如是国营公司）无法在这么短时间内做出决定；又或是买方在卖方违约后的很短时间就已经与分买方（sub-buyer）达成和解协议，给分买方一笔钱作为不交货的赔偿，这导致了稍后卖方去提供这票货物的新要约已经毫无意义；亦或是买方有一点理由怀疑卖方这一票货物有问题，例如是质量上的问题。

这种能够说的过去的理由是千变万化，反正去重复的是要求受害方去合理减少损失的责任并不严格。

怕就怕买方根本给不出任何不去接受卖方新要约的理由，甚至有当场的文件证明买方是意气用事或蛮不讲理。

这就对买方有危险了，例如说对卖方说：“我以后再也不跟你这种人做生意了！”。

如果有关的合约是一个长期的合作协议，买方倒还可能有一个说得过去的理由，即缺乏长期与卖方合作的信心，因为卖方动不动终断合约甚至加上其他的事实（例如卖方是一家小公司或皮包公司）。

但如果在这里介绍的一票货物买卖，也明知道有一票质量没有问题甚至已装船的货物，去买或者不买，就不存在需要去考虑跟什么人做生意了。

这一来，同样的一句话“我以后再也不跟你这种人做生意了！”就可能不足以证明受害方的合理，甚至会被视为是意气用事。

这方面可节录Devlin大法官在Heaven & Kesterton Ltd v. Establishment Francois Albiac & Cie (1956) 2 Lloyd‘s Rep 316 (QB)所说如下：
“If goods are rejected in a c.i.f. contract for some reason that has nothing to do with quality – the shipment date was wrong, or documents were not in order, or something of that sort, so that the goods are properly rejected – and then the buyer goes out into the market to buy goods of the contract quality, it is open to the seller to go to him and say: ‗Well, then, I tender you these goods. These goods are of the contract quality. You are looking for goods of the contract quality. You rightly rejected them upon a basis that had nothing to do with their
quality. If you are looking, therefore, for goods to make good your loss, here they are, and I can supply cheaper than you would be able to buy them at the market rate outside.‘If the seller does that, that is a matter which must be taken into consideration in answering the question of whether or not the buyer has acted reasonably, as it is his duty to do, in mitigating damage.”
以下内容会对这一问题作进一步的详细讨论。

5.1 合理与否是根据事实的认定
在每一个案件，由于事实不会完全相同，所以合理与否是要去根据双方当事人提供的证据作出事实的认定。

在McAuley v. London Transport Executive (1957) 2 Lloyd‘s Rep 500先例中，上诉庭的Jenkins大法官是这样说：“The question must be one of fact, as I see it, in each particular case：W as the advice, and were the prospects of success of the proposed operation or treatment, clearly put to the plaintiff so that he, as a reasonable man, would appreciate that he was being advised that this treatment or operation would put him right. If the evidence shows that, then it seems to me that the plaintiff, as a reasonable person, ought either to accept that advice, or else go to his own doctor and say: ‗Doctor, this is what I have been advised by Mr So-and So, the surgeon at Such-and-Such a hospital; what do you think about it?‘ Of course, the plaintiff here never did any such thing as that.”
在该先例，案情涉及了被告在雇用原告期间，原告因公而导致手腕割伤，并同时切断了神经。

原告曾经被外科医生诊断过，认为他如果动手术的话，就会有一个好的机会在3个月到6个月之间大程度的康复，并且有90%的机会令手指进行大动作的活动或35%的机会令手指进行比较细致的活动。

否则，这样下去就会导致肌肉萎缩与一个严重程度的变形。

但原告不听从医生的建议，并被法院看来是想打完官司才去处理。

Jenkins 大法官是这样说：“It seems that the plaintiff was averse to having the left wrist dealt with until his legal claim in regard to the injury to the right wrist had been attended to.”这导致了上诉庭判原告没有合理去减少损失，而损失的计算只能是去假设原告有去动手术并康复的情况下所蒙受的损失。

这方面Jenkins大法官是这样说：“In that state of affairs, what is the effect, if any, on the quantum of damages of the plaintiff‘s conduct in relation to the
advice he received from these two medical men? It is not in dispute that, inasmuch as in a case of this sort it is the duty of the injured party to mitigate damages, it is his duty to act on any medical advice he receives to the effect that this or that treatment will give this or that prospect of success. If he receives medical advice to the effect that an operation will have a 90% chance of success, and is strongly recommended to undergo the operation and does not do so, then the result must be, I think, that he has acted unreasonably, and that the damages ought to be assessed as they would properly have been assessable if he had, in fact, undergone the operation and secured the degree of recovery to be expected from it.”
另在The “Solholt”(1983) 1 Lloyd‘s Rep 605先例中，Donaldson大法官也说：“whether the loss is avoidable by reasonable action on the part of the plaintiff is a question of fact not law”，并说这一点已经在上诉庭的先例Payzu v. Saunders (1919) 2 KB 581已经有了定论。

这带来的结果就是如果在第一审（不论是高院还是仲裁庭）认定了原告有或者没有去合理减少损失，就没有机会能够去上诉对这一事实的认定作出改变。

但减少损失的大原则也会涉及到法律的问题，这主要在受害方是否有“责任”要去减少损失方面。

例如在对方有一个预期违约（anticipatory breach），受害方拒绝接受违约的情况下，受害方是否需要去减少损失。

又或是，受害方并非去索赔损失，而是有去索赔债务（debt）的选择下，受害方是否需要去减少损失。

这些问题会在本章另段介绍。

5.2 对受害方合理的要求程度不高与认定并不稳定
已经在第4段提到过，英国法律对这种合理的要求并不会太高，毕竟始作俑者是违约方/侵权方，他的违约/侵权已经使受害方处于不同程度的困难的境地。

因此只要受害方采取了一些看来适当与解释得过去的补救行动，他就可以获得全部赔偿。

这方面去重复只是为了去节录有关的权威说法，就是在Banco de Portugal v. Waterlow & Sons, Ltd (1932) AC 452中Macmillan勋爵所说：“Where the sufferer from a breach of contract finds himself in consequence of that breach placed in a position of embarrassment the measures which he may be driven to adopt in order to extricate himself ought not to be weighed in nice scales at the instance of the party whose breach of contract has occasioned the difficulty. It is。