1. Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co. Ltd -v- Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd  2 QB 26. 2. The amount of damages naturally depends on a number of factors. See Hadley -v- Baxendale  9 Exch 341. 3. Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co. Ltd -v- Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd  2 QB 26, 70.
4.C is for example, in Dominion Corporate Trustees Ltd -v- Debenhams Properties Ltd  EWHC 1193 (Ch), the Court interpreted an apparently intermediate condition in which the elimination of dismissal for a minor offence appeared too drastic. 5. In Union Eagle Ltd -v- Golden Achievement Ltd  UKPC 5, a 10-minute delay in the payment of the purchase price led to the termination of a home purchase agreement and the cancellation of the bond paid. 6. United Scientific Holdings Ltd -v- Burnley BC  AC 904, under 943-944. 7. Lombard North Central plc -v- Butterworth  QB 527 CA 8. British and Commonwealth Holdings plc -v- Quadrex Holdings Inc  3 WLR 723 9. The notice of contract is not technically the condition of time, but proves the date on which it would be wise to require the undertaking. If the execution is not completed on that date, it may be considered an intention not to execute it. See United Scientific Holdings Ltd- -v Burnley BC  AC 904. 10.
Universal Cargo Carriers Corp. -v- Citati (No. 1)  2 QB 401, 436. 11. White and Carter (Councils) Ltd -v McGregor  AC 413. 12. Matthews -v- Smallwood  1 Ch 777 to 786. 13. Peyman -v- Lanjani e.a.
 Ch 457; Kendall -v- Hamilton (1878-79) 4 App. Case. 504. 14. However, the nature of the contract may determine the length of time given to the innocent. If z.B. time is essential or if the contract was entered into in a volatile market, the time allowed is probably relatively short. See Force India Formula One Team Ltd-v- Etihad Airways PJSC  EWCA Civ 1051,  All ER (D) 41 (byte) at 122. 15.
See Stocznia Gdanska SA -v- Latvian Shipping Co (Repudiation)  2 All ER (Comm) 768. 16. Hain Steamship Co Ltd -v- Tate – Lyle  2 All 597; Bentsen -v- Taylor Sons – Co  2 QB 274. 17. The termination clauses of the contract must not be reasonable in common law, but the attempt to exclude or limit liability in the event of infringement or to limit available remedies may be covered by the 1977 Abusive Terms of Contract Act or by the unfair clauses of the 1999 Consumer Contract Settlement. See Ashurst Quickguide: Restriction and Exclusion Clauses. 18. Lombard North Central plc -v- Butterworth  QB 527. 19. Phone 4U Ltd (In Administration) -v- EE Ltd  EWHC 49 (Comm). 20. Telefone 4U Ltd (In Administration) -v- EE Ltd  EWHC 49 (Comm).
In that country, the termination conditions, which concerned only the right of contractual termination, excluded the right to loss of damages to bargains (estimated at more than $200 million). 21. Shell Egypt West Manzala GMBH -v- Dana Gas Egypt Limited (formerly Centurion Petroleum Corporate)  EWHC 465 (Comm), 34. 22. British Westinghouse Electric Co. Ltd -v- Underground Electric Rys  AC 673. 23. Except excluding – see the effects of the contractual provisions.
24. Elms -v- Beadel (1860) 2 From GF – J 333.