Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter

    In the Court of Appeal
    Hastings v Sunburst Design Ltd
    Arthur Hastings inherited a large amount of money and planned to fulfil his lifelong dream of owning a luxurious home fitted out in the style of 1930s art deco.
    He bought a flat in Charterhouse Mansions, a block of flats built in London in 1930, but modernised in the 1960s. He contracted with Sunburst Design Ltd, a renovations company specialising in art deco work, to restore the flat with its original period features. A full specification was agreed for the work, which was to cost £300,000.
    When Sunburst Design finished the work, and had been paid the full amount, Hastings noticed that some of the work was not exactly as he had requested. The kind of mahogany used for many of the fixed wall cabinets was not of the right kind, and was appreciably lighter in colour than agreed and than that used for some of the other cabinets. This would cost £30,000 to remedy, as the cabinets would have to be removed, disassembled and then reconstructed before being replaced, but the change, if undertaken, would not affect the overall value of the flat.
    It transpired that the reason Sunburst Design used the lighter mahogany was that although they had obtained mahogany of the correct colour, they had then sold it to a third party who paid a very high price, enabling the company to make a profit of £6000.
    Hastings brought an action for damages against Sunburst Design for the cost of having the mahogany cabinets replaced. He also brought an action for account of profits for the £6000 profit Sunburst Design made by deliberately reselling the mahogany they should have used in his flat.
    At first instance, Christie J held:
    a) That the action for damages failed as the cost of replacing the mahogany was disproportionate to the benefit to be obtained (Ruxley Electronics and Constructions Ltd. v Forsyth [1996] 1 AC 344). Hastings was instead awarded damages of £1000 for his loss of amenity.
    b) No account of profits should be awarded as the circumstances of this case did not fall within the principles laid down by the House of Lords in AG v Blake [2001] 1 AC 268.
    Hastings appeals to the Court of Appeal against both of the above decisions.

    I'm the lead Appellant and arguing part A and B.
    I literally have no idea what my arguments could be as majority of them can be countered by the defendants arguments. These are the opposing arguments I've gathered:

    In relation to part B; not really an 'exceptional case' and then mentioned some of the restrictions brought in by cases like Esso Petroleum v Niad and am about to look at Experience Hendrix LLC v PPX Enterprises.

    Precedent; the Court of Appeal have to follow R v G

    The case of Argyll Stores, "which shows a breach of contract is a necessary fact of commercial life, nothing inherently inequitable about a company breaching a contract"

    Only represents consumer surplus

    The point about an action for disgorgement of profits is that the extent of the remedy is unclear. The cost of replacing the mahogany was disproportionate to the benefit to be obtained

    Any idea what arguments I could form?

    Any help would be appreciated!!
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 10, 2015
How are you feeling about your exams?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.