Tito v Waddell (No. 2) [1977]

Facts

  • A mining company, after finishing mining operations on an island, failed to replant tress as required by the contract

Issue

  • Could damages be award to reflect the profit gained by the mining company by not replanting, rather then to reflect the loss the the land?

Decision

  • No

Reasoning

  • Contractual damages reflect loss only
  • However, the mining company could be forced to put the trees back under the doctrine of benefit and burden in land law, as the benefit obtained by the mining rights was relevant the burden of restoring the island back to its former appearance once works had ceased
RELATED CASE  Chaplin v Hicks [2011]

Posted in Contract Law Revision Notes.

This page was last updated on 27th April 2015

© 2020 Webstroke Law - Terms and Privacy Policy