Can you help based just on this info and no more questions?
I can't answer based upon such limited information.
I need to know the circumstances of the return of the mail andwhat loss you have suffered.
Circumstances are the mail was returned by an unaccountable mistake that the Royal Mail accept and apologise for. The loss was an amount of £2,500.00.
I need details of how the loss was incurred. Did RM know that if this was late/lost/returned, that you would suffer loss?
Why was it returned? What was the error?
RM did not know I would suffer a loss . Approx 5 letters over a period of 3 weeks were returned. The Postman denies all knowledge but the RM accepts it happened as i was able to retrieve the returned mail from the sending parties duly stamped with the RM reason for return i.e " Recipient gone away", this explains the error.
Hope this helps.
I still don't know why the mail was returned to sender.
I also don't know why you suffered £2500 loss as a result ofthese letters being returned to sender but on your admission you have them now.
So I'm going to answer based upon the limited information I haveand that is that you have no claim.
There is already case law on this, not with regard to Royal mailin particular with regard to consequential loss on breach of contract.
The first thing to mention is that there is no contract betweenthe recipient of male and Royal Mail. The contract is between the sender andRoyal Mail.
Secondly, even assuming that there is a legitimate loss eitherfrom ordinary plain straightforward negligence or from breach of contract, anyloss "must be within the contemplation of the parties" which means basicallythat whoever sent it must have advised Royal Mail that "if this does not arriveon a particular date, there will be a huge loss for which you will be heldresponsible".
They would probably then have insisted that it was sent byspecial delivery.
Does that answer the question? Can I assistfurther or answer any specific queries?
If you have not done already, please don't forget to positivelyrate my answer service even if it was not what you wanted to hear. You shouldnow see a series of buttons which enable you to rate my answer service formally.If you don't rate it positively, then the site keep your deposit and I get 0for my time. It is imperative that you give my answer a positive rating. It doesn't give me, "a pat on the head", "good boy" (like ebay), it is mylivelihood!If in ratings you feel that you expected more or it only helped a little,please ask.
The thread does remain open for me to answer follow-up questionsafter rating my answer service.Rating doesn't close the enquiry atall even though the site may give that impression. It remains open for you toread and ask for further clarification.Regards.
PS Experts on here are online and off-line all day each day andweekends so please bear with me if I do not get back to you immediately.
PS. I use voice type, voice recognition typing because I onlytype with two fingers and it would take me ages. Sometimes, a computer does nothear me correctly and you will get an incoherent word. I do try to butsometimes they slip through. I apologise therefore if anything doesn't make sense.It is me losing it, not you. Just ask if anything is not clear please.
I wish to rate excellent but need to ask the question : What case law exists can you quote the case(s) please. I will rate immediately I get the next chance.
Thanking you in advance.
The one that springs to mind is Hadley V Baxendale which was todo with a vent in a pig feed silo although from memory, I think that wasprobably more to do with the amount of damages, which said that the amount ofdamages did not have to be proportionate to the breach of the negligence or thevalue of the contract.
Although if you Google "within the contemplation of the parties"the majority of links will be to case law on this particular subject.
There is a case which is a Scottish case involving continualpouring of concrete into open bracket I think) a chimney where the powercompany interrupted the power and was sued because of the loss by the concretecompany. The concrete company lost because they had not advised the powercompany that they needed a constant supply of electricity otherwise it wouldcost them zillions of pounds. The loss was not "within the contemplation of theparties"
this is all A level and law degree/law student stuff.
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).