Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth [1996]

Facts

  • Defendant refused to pay for swimming pool which was too shallow

Issue

  • Could damages be awarded for removing and replacing pool which was correct depth?

Decision

  • No, alternative ‘loss of amenity’ damages awarded

Reasoning

  • No loss of value to land and no loss of enjoyment or deprivation of use for intended purposes, therefore much lesser quantum of damages in form of loss of amenity awarded (~£3000) to recognise loss.
RELATED CASE  CCC Films v Impact Quadrant Films [1985]

Posted in Contract Law Revision Notes.

This page was last updated on 29th April 2014

© 2020 Webstroke Law - Terms and Privacy Policy