28:
167:‘If the cause is no more than disappointment that the contractual obligation has been broken, damages are not recoverable even if the disappointment has led to a complete mental breakdown. But, if the cause of the inconvenience or discomfort is a sensory (sight, touch, hearing, smell, taste) experience, damages can, subject to the remoteness rules, be recovered.’
121:. It had a croquet lawn, a tennis court, an orchard, a paddock and a swimming pool. It cost £420,000 and after the purchase was complete on 28 February 1991, he spent £125,000 improving it. He also had a flat in London, a house in Brighton and one overseas. He hired Mr Skinner to survey the house, particularly to determine levels of
171:
Referring to the departure of this case from "an ordinary surveyor's contract", Lord Clyde said it was 'the specific provision relating to peacefulness of the property in respect of the aircraft noise which makes the present case out of the ordinary'. The predominant object test was dispensed with,
358:
172:
so it was enough that the term broken was known by both parties to have been important (it did not matter whether the purpose of the contract was to provide peace of mind). So it seems surveyors will not ordinarily be liable when a house is defective and causes distress.
125:. Skinner reported that the noise was of acceptable level, whereas in reality, at 6 am the noise was intolerable. Holding patterns formed right above the house. This distressed Mr Farley as he often spent early mornings in his garden.
163:). He added that if there had been an appreciable reduction in the house’s market value, he could not recover both, which would have been double recovery. Although £10,000 was ‘on the high side’, the value was within the right range.
189:
151:
Lord Scott held that if Mr Farley had known about the aircraft noise he would not have bought the property. He could either claim for being deprived of the contractual benefit (
140:
agreed with the defendant's challenge to this ruling, stating that no damages could be awarded for mere inconvenience, and physical discomfort was required to justify damages.
128:
The trial judge held that Mr Farley had paid no more than someone who knew of the noise, so there was no financial loss, but awarded £10,000 for distress and discomfort.
267:
560:
238:
418:
440:
532:) it was said contract breaking is an ‘incident of commercial life which players in the game are expected to meet with mental fortitude’
137:
545:
550:
279:
153:
475:
190:
Benchmarks -- matching the damages to the distress -- the law that usually leaves distress and inconvenience to go uncompensated
512:
555:
452:
394:
290:
231:
148:
The House of Lords restored the trial judge’s award, because not being put at such inconvenience was an important term.
27:
520:
383:
372:
496:
68:
504:
429:
314:
224:
463:
490:
98:
159:
336:
255:
525:
302:
118:
529:
122:
539:
347:
202:
94:
57:
508:
QB 233, 1 All ER 71, where purpose of contract to obtain some mental satisfaction
406:
114:
157:), or he could claim as having consequential loss on breach of contract (
83:
Lord Steyn, Lord Scott, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Clyde and Lord Hutton
102:
216:
220:
205:
UKHL 49 (11 October 2001), paragraph 42, accessed 31 March 2022
113:
Mr Farley bought a large estate, Riverside House, in
79:
74:
64:
53:
45:
37:
20:
101:case, concerning the measure and availability of
192:, published 5 July 2001, accessed 23 March 2022
232:
8:
268:Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal & Mining Co.
477:Dies v British Mining and Finance Corp Ltd
360:British Westinghouse Ltd v Underground Ltd
239:
225:
217:
26:
17:
524:2 AC 1, 49, (a case actually concerning "
181:
419:Cooperative Insurance Ltd v Argyll Ltd
32:An aircraft landing at Gatwick in 1997
441:Wrotham Park Ltd v Parkside Homes Ltd
7:
14:
280:Ruxley Electronics Ltd v Forsyth
154:Ruxley Electronics Ltd v Forsyth
561:2001 in United Kingdom case law
513:Jackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd
1:
453:Surrey CC v Bredero Homes Ltd
395:Sky Petroleum v VIP Petroleum
521:Johnson v Gore Wood & Co
373:Banco de Portugal v Waterlow
291:Anglia Television Ltd v Reed
577:
384:Saamco v York Montague Ltd
546:English contract case law
497:Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd
472:
460:
449:
437:
426:
415:
403:
391:
380:
369:
355:
344:
333:
322:
311:
299:
287:
276:
264:
252:
25:
505:Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd
430:Attorney General v Blake
315:Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd
203:Farley v. Skinner (2001)
551:English remedy case law
117:, Sussex, not far from
169:
271:, 382 P 2d 109 (1962)
165:
69:Full text of judgment
556:House of Lords cases
491:English contract law
99:English contract law
337:Hadley v Baxendale
486:
485:
259:(1848) 1 Exch 850
256:Robinson v Harman
87:
86:
568:
478:
464:Rowland v Divall
361:
326:Farley v Skinner
241:
234:
227:
218:
206:
199:
193:
186:
91:Farley v Skinner
75:Court membership
30:
21:Farley v Skinner
18:
576:
575:
571:
570:
569:
567:
566:
565:
536:
535:
526:reflective loss
487:
482:
476:
468:
456:
445:
433:
422:
411:
399:
387:
376:
365:
359:
351:
340:
329:
318:
307:
303:Chaplin v Hicks
295:
283:
272:
260:
248:
245:
215:
210:
209:
200:
196:
187:
183:
178:
146:
138:Court of Appeal
134:
132:Court of Appeal
119:Gatwick Airport
111:
60:, 4 All ER 801
49:11 October 2001
33:
12:
11:
5:
574:
572:
564:
563:
558:
553:
548:
538:
537:
534:
533:
530:UK company law
517:
516:, 3 All ER 92
509:
501:
493:
484:
483:
473:
470:
469:
461:
458:
457:
450:
447:
446:
438:
435:
434:
427:
424:
423:
416:
413:
412:
404:
401:
400:
392:
389:
388:
381:
378:
377:
370:
367:
366:
356:
353:
352:
345:
342:
341:
334:
331:
330:
323:
320:
319:
312:
309:
308:
300:
297:
296:
288:
285:
284:
277:
274:
273:
265:
262:
261:
253:
250:
249:
247:Remedies cases
246:
244:
243:
236:
229:
221:
214:
211:
208:
207:
194:
180:
179:
177:
174:
160:Watts v Morrow
145:
144:House of Lords
142:
133:
130:
123:aircraft noise
110:
107:
105:for distress.
85:
84:
81:
80:Judges sitting
77:
76:
72:
71:
66:
62:
61:
55:
51:
50:
47:
43:
42:
41:House of Lords
39:
35:
34:
31:
23:
22:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
573:
562:
559:
557:
554:
552:
549:
547:
544:
543:
541:
531:
527:
523:
522:
518:
515:
514:
510:
507:
506:
502:
499:
498:
494:
492:
489:
488:
480:
479:
471:
466:
465:
459:
455:
454:
448:
443:
442:
436:
432:
431:
425:
421:
420:
414:
409:
408:
402:
397:
396:
390:
386:
385:
379:
375:
374:
368:
363:
362:
354:
350:
349:
348:The Achilleas
343:
339:
338:
332:
328:
327:
321:
317:
316:
310:
305:
304:
298:
293:
292:
286:
282:
281:
275:
270:
269:
263:
258:
257:
251:
242:
237:
235:
230:
228:
223:
222:
219:
212:
204:
198:
195:
191:
188:Law Gazette,
185:
182:
175:
173:
168:
164:
162:
161:
156:
155:
149:
143:
141:
139:
131:
129:
126:
124:
120:
116:
108:
106:
104:
100:
96:
93:
92:
82:
78:
73:
70:
67:
63:
59:
56:
52:
48:
44:
40:
36:
29:
24:
19:
16:
519:
511:
503:
495:
474:
462:
451:
439:
428:
417:
405:
393:
382:
371:
357:
346:
335:
325:
324:
313:
301:
289:
278:
266:
254:
201:Lord Clyde,
197:
184:
170:
166:
158:
152:
150:
147:
135:
127:
112:
90:
89:
88:
15:
407:Patel v Ali
540:Categories
176:References
65:Transcript
444:1 WLR 798
398:1 WLR 576
115:Blackboys
54:Citations
481:1 KB 724
467:2 KB 500
306:2 KB 786
213:See also
294:1 QB 60
103:damages
95:UKHL 49
58:UKHL 49
46:Decided
500:AC 488
410:Ch 283
364:AC 673
97:is an
528:" in
109:Facts
38:Court
136:The
542::
240:e
233:t
226:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
