42:
152:
surplus’ was recognised in an award for breach of contract. To award them nothing would be to say the promise was illusory, and that was unsatisfactory. But correcting was too expensive, and too much for the loss of Mr
Forsyth. It would be contrary to ‘common sense’ and unreasonable. So we must look to ‘the loss truly suffered by the promisee’.
151:
The House of Lords allowed the appeal and upheld the judge's award of £2500 for loss of amenity. Lord
Mustill said ‘the law must cater for those occasions where the value of the promise to the promisee exceeds the financial enhancement of his position which full performance will secure.’ So ‘consumer
142:
At first instance the judge rejected the claim for 'cost of cure' damages on the ground that it was an unreasonable claim in the circumstances, but awarded
Forsyth 'loss of amenity damages' of £2500. This award was reversed by the Court of Appeal which held that damages should be awarded at the
138:
Ruxley agreed to build a swimming pool in
Forsyth's garden. The contract specified that the pool would have a diving area seven feet, six inches deep. When constructed, the diving area was only six feet deep. This was still a safe depth for diving and one which did not affect value of the pool.
156:
a common feature of small building works performed on residential property that the cost of the work is not fully reflected by an increase in the market value of the house, and that comparatively minor deviations from specification or sound workmanship may have no direct financial effect at
311:
143:
amount required to place
Forsyth in the same position as he would have been in had the contract been performed, which in the circumstances was the cost of rebuilding the pool. Ruxley appealed to the House of Lords.
161:
Lord Lloyd said that though courts do not care what damages will be used for, the intention of the innocent party for what he does with them may be relevant to the issue of reasonableness in awarding damages.
130:
case, concerning the choice between an award of damages for the cost of curing a defect in a building contract or (when that is unreasonable) for awarding damages for loss of "amenity".
139:
Forsyth was not happy, however, and he brought an action for breach of contract claiming the cost of having a pool demolished and rebuilt (the cost of cure), a sum of £21,540.
489:
220:
552:
191:
371:
393:
485:) it was said contract breaking is an ‘incident of commercial life which players in the game are expected to meet with mental fortitude’
542:
232:
428:
465:
547:
405:
347:
243:
184:
92:
473:
336:
325:
449:
457:
382:
267:
517:
Richard S, James D, Ralph C, 'Text, Cases and
Materials on Contract Law',(2nd edn, Routledge, 2011) page 581
177:
88:
497:
100:
416:
443:
127:
84:
289:
17:
208:
278:
478:
255:
529:
Harris, Ogus and
Phillips, ‘Contract Remedies and the Consumer Surplus’ (1979) 95 LQR 581
482:
41:
536:
300:
96:
461:
QB 233, 1 All ER 71, where purpose of contract to obtain some mental satisfaction
123:
68:
359:
169:
173:
106:
80:
75:
64:
56:
48:
34:
120:Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth
154:
185:
8:
490:Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal & Mining Co.
221:Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal & Mining Co.
430:Dies v British Mining and Finance Corp Ltd
313:British Westinghouse Ltd v Underground Ltd
192:
178:
170:
40:
31:
477:2 AC 1, 49, (a case actually concerning "
510:
372:Cooperative Insurance Ltd v Argyll Ltd
394:Wrotham Park Ltd v Parkside Homes Ltd
7:
25:
233:Ruxley Electronics Ltd v Forsyth
35:Ruxley Electronics Ltd v Forsyth
18:Ruxley Electronics Ltd v Forsyth
553:1995 in United Kingdom case law
466:Jackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd
27:1995 English contract law case
1:
406:Surrey CC v Bredero Homes Ltd
348:Sky Petroleum v VIP Petroleum
112:Loss of amenity, cost of cure
474:Johnson v Gore Wood & Co
326:Banco de Portugal v Waterlow
244:Anglia Television Ltd v Reed
93:Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle
569:
493:, 382 P.2d 109 (Okl. 1962)
337:Saamco v York Montague Ltd
450:Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd
425:
413:
402:
390:
379:
368:
356:
344:
333:
322:
308:
297:
286:
275:
264:
252:
240:
229:
217:
205:
111:
39:
458:Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd
383:Attorney General v Blake
268:Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd
543:English remedy case law
159:
89:Lord Bridge of Harwich
498:Tito v Waddell (No 2)
224:, 382 P 2d 109 (1962)
101:Lord Lloyd of Berwick
548:House of Lords cases
444:English contract law
128:English contract law
85:Lord Keith of Kinkel
290:Hadley v Baxendale
439:
438:
212:(1848) 1 Exch 850
209:Robinson v Harman
116:
115:
16:(Redirected from
560:
518:
515:
431:
417:Rowland v Divall
314:
279:Farley v Skinner
194:
187:
180:
171:
76:Court membership
44:
32:
21:
568:
567:
563:
562:
561:
559:
558:
557:
533:
532:
526:
521:
516:
512:
508:
479:reflective loss
440:
435:
429:
421:
409:
398:
386:
375:
364:
352:
340:
329:
318:
312:
304:
293:
282:
271:
260:
256:Chaplin v Hicks
248:
236:
225:
213:
201:
198:
168:
149:
136:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
566:
564:
556:
555:
550:
545:
535:
534:
531:
530:
525:
522:
520:
519:
509:
507:
504:
503:
502:
494:
486:
483:UK company law
470:
469:, 3 All ER 92
462:
454:
446:
437:
436:
426:
423:
422:
414:
411:
410:
403:
400:
399:
391:
388:
387:
380:
377:
376:
369:
366:
365:
357:
354:
353:
345:
342:
341:
334:
331:
330:
323:
320:
319:
309:
306:
305:
298:
295:
294:
287:
284:
283:
276:
273:
272:
265:
262:
261:
253:
250:
249:
241:
238:
237:
230:
227:
226:
218:
215:
214:
206:
203:
202:
200:Remedies cases
199:
197:
196:
189:
182:
174:
167:
164:
148:
145:
135:
132:
114:
113:
109:
108:
104:
103:
82:
81:Judges sitting
78:
77:
73:
72:
66:
62:
61:
58:
54:
53:
52:House of Lords
50:
46:
45:
37:
36:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
565:
554:
551:
549:
546:
544:
541:
540:
538:
528:
527:
523:
514:
511:
505:
500:
499:
495:
492:
491:
487:
484:
480:
476:
475:
471:
468:
467:
463:
460:
459:
455:
452:
451:
447:
445:
442:
441:
433:
432:
424:
419:
418:
412:
408:
407:
401:
396:
395:
389:
385:
384:
378:
374:
373:
367:
362:
361:
355:
350:
349:
343:
339:
338:
332:
328:
327:
321:
316:
315:
307:
303:
302:
301:The Achilleas
296:
292:
291:
285:
281:
280:
274:
270:
269:
263:
258:
257:
251:
246:
245:
239:
235:
234:
228:
223:
222:
216:
211:
210:
204:
195:
190:
188:
183:
181:
176:
175:
172:
165:
163:
158:
153:
146:
144:
140:
133:
131:
129:
125:
122:
121:
110:
105:
102:
98:
94:
90:
86:
83:
79:
74:
70:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
47:
43:
38:
33:
30:
19:
513:
496:
488:
472:
464:
456:
448:
427:
415:
404:
392:
381:
370:
358:
346:
335:
324:
310:
299:
288:
277:
266:
254:
242:
231:
219:
207:
160:
155:
150:
141:
137:
119:
118:
117:
97:Lord Mustill
60:29 June 1995
29:
360:Patel v Ali
537:Categories
524:References
397:1 WLR 798
351:1 WLR 576
71:, AC 344
65:Citations
434:1 KB 724
420:2 KB 500
259:2 KB 786
166:See also
147:Judgment
107:Keywords
247:1 QB 60
57:Decided
501:Ch 106
453:AC 488
363:Ch 283
317:AC 673
126:is an
124:UKHL 8
69:UKHL 8
506:Notes
481:" in
134:Facts
49:Court
157:all.
539::
99:,
95:,
91:,
87:,
193:e
186:t
179:v
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
