Where a vendor of land failed to complete for reasons other than a defect in title and the purchaser was unable to prove a loss of profits he was entitled by way of damages, in addition to the return of the deposit, to interest in respect of the loss of use of the deposit and to the costs of approving and executing the contract, investigating title, preparing the conveyance and of searches.
Morton J said: ‘The case is a good illustration of the fact that actions in which the subject-matter is comparatively trifling often give rise to the most difficult questions of fact and of law’.
References: [1939] Ch 588, [1939] 2 All ER 255
Judges: Morton J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Omak Maritime Ltd v Mamola Challenger Shipping Co Ltd ComC ([2010] WLR (D) 230, [2010] EWHC 2026 (Comm), Bailii, WLRD)
The court was asked as to the basis in law of the principle allowing a contracting party to claim, as damages for breach, expenditure which has been wasted as a result of a breach. The charterer had been in breach of the contract but the owner had . . - Cited – Hopgood v Brown CA ([1955] 1 WLR 213, [1955] 1 All ER 550, (1055) 99 Sol Jo 168, Bailii, [1955] EWCA Civ 7)
Two adjoining plots were conveyed to the same purchaser. Buildings were constructed, and the adjusted boundary required an obtuse angle. The plots were sold on separately but with the original straight boundaries. The plans on the conveyances had no . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 26 August 2020; Ref: scu.421539 br>