ABSTRACT
This chapter demonstrates that The MTM Hong Kong is a decision that flowed neatly from pre-existing and well-established principles and did not, as some have suggested, give rise to far-reaching implications for general contract law. The fundamental principle of the common law of damages is the compensatory principle, which requires that the injured party is 'so far as money can do it to be placed in the same situation with respect to damages as if the contract had been performed': Robinson v Harman 1 Exch 850, 855. The claim brought by Owners was for damages of US$1,212,316.50 as compensation for Charterers' repudiatory breach of contract. It is part and parcel of an inherently fact-sensitive inquiry that it would be impossible to accurately detail the myriad circumstances in which an innocent shipowner might suffer, and receive damages for, a different 'kind' of loss than merely net earnings under the repudiated voyage charter.
