Is the case Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth limited to construction contract?

anson2004

Hi All :

Following are the note made by myself regarding this case
Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth
-- A contract to building a swimming pool at depth 7ft 6 inchfor B, at a cost of 70000P
-- The pool was built at depth 6ft 9inch
-- reconstruction needed further 20000P
-- Court thought that it is still suitable for diving, only granted a 'loss of amenity' at 2500P
-- it is catagorized as expectation interest
-- remedy objective. 『to compensate for established loss and not to provide a gratuitous benefit to aggrieved party』
--IN BUILDING CONTRACT, 2 principles for determining the amount : (1) principal for reinstatement. (2) difference in value.
-- (1)not reasonable here . "Expense would be out of proportion to the benefit to be obtained" (Richard Stone)

Court chose (2) instead of (1) because amount in (1) is unreasonably large, also value in (1) is significantly > (2) . Note the value in (2) is independent of innocent party's feeling to the breach.

My Question is : has the principle above been widen to all types of contracts (Instead of construction contract ) ?

Reply 1

jacketpotato

Yes.

Contractual damages seek to protect the expectation interest.
Usually this is measured by the difference in value between what the innocent party received and what he should have received.
However, you can opt for the cost of curing the substandard performance, so that you get what you are entitled to, where it is reasonable to do so. The point about Ruxley is that you can't opt for the cost of cure where it is unreasonable to do so - it would be unerasonable for Mr. R to spend £20,000 increasing the depth of the pool.