Robinson v Harman
Damages for breach of contract aim to put the claimant in the position it would have been in if the contract had been performed.
Facts
Mr Harman agreed to grant Mr Robinson a lease of a house for 21 years. Mr Harman knew that he did not have the power to grant such a lease, because the property was held on trust and the consent of others was needed, which he did not have. When this became clear, Mr Robinson could not have the lease, and he sued for damages, including the loss of the bargain he had made.
Legal principle
The court held that Mr Robinson could recover damages for the loss of his bargain, and not merely his expenses. Parke B said that the rule of the common law is that where a party sustains a loss by reason of a breach of contract, he is, so far as money can do it, to be placed in the same situation, with respect to damages, as if the contract had been performed. This expectation principle remains the basic measure of damages for breach of contract.
Related cases on remedies
- Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd [1909] AC 488
- Anglia Television Ltd v Reed [1972] 1 QB 60
- Attorney General v Blake [2001] 1 AC 268
- British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co Ltd v Underground Electric Railways Co of London Ltd [1912] AC 673
- Cavendish Square Holding BV v Makdessi; ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, [2016] AC 1172
- Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll Stores (Holdings) Ltd [1998] AC 1
- Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79
- Farley v Skinner [2001] UKHL 49, [2002] 2 AC 732
Studying contract law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
