¹ E.g. Harbutt's Plasticine v. Wayne Tank and Pump Ltd. [1970] 1 Q.B. 447. The difference between performance damages and consequential loss was adverted to by Lord Griffiths in Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v. Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd. [1994] 1 A.C. 85, 97. Claims against professionals for failure to exercise skill and care will normally be in respect of consequential loss so that difference in value can be an appropriate measure (Treitel, , The Law of Contract, 9th ed., (1995), p. 852)Google Scholar though not necessarily so (Auburn Municipal Council v. Arc Engineering [1973] 1 N.S.W.L.R. 513; Bevan Investments Ltd. v. Blackhall & Struthers [1978] 2 N.Z.L.R. 97).

² (1854) 9 Exch. 341; 156 E.R. 145. The two categories have not always been distinguished, e.g. Surrey County Council v. Bredero Homes Ltd. [1993] 1 W.L.R. 1361, 1365.

³ [1969] 1 A.C. 350.

⁴ [1994] 1 W.L.R. 650 (C.A.); [1996] 1 A.C. 344 (H.L.). Noted: (C.A.) Beale (1995) 111 L.Q.R. 54; Price (1995) 69 A.L.J. 32; Halson [1995] Lloyd's M.C.L.Q. 27; Dawson, “Reflections on Certain Aspects of the Law of Damages for Breach of Contract”. (1995) 9 J.C.L. 125, 146 et seq. (H.L.) Poole (1996) 59 M.L.R. 272; O'Sullivan [1995] C.L.J. 496; McMeel [1995] Lloyd's M.C.L.Q. 456; Bruce (1995) 145 N.L. 1086; Loke, “Cost of Cure or Difference in Market Value? Towards a Sound Choice in the Basis for Quantifying Expectation Damages” (1996) 10 J.C.L. 189; Phang, “Subjectivity, Objectivity and Policy—Contractual Damages in the House of Lords” [1996] J.B.L. 362.

⁵ At p. 361.

⁶ At p. 660.

⁷ While subjective factors are relevant to general damages (cf. Scholtz v. Thompson 1996 (2) SA 409Google Scholar, 417) the issue here was one of market worth.

⁸ Ogus, Cf. Harris and Phillips, , “Contract Remedies and the Consumer Surplus” (1979)Google Scholar 95 L.Q.R. 581, 582, for whom the “consumer surplus” (value to a consumer beyond market value) is subjective.

⁹ [1996] 1 A.C. 344, at 354, 357, 358, 362, 372–373.

¹⁰ 1 lth ed., (1995) by Duncan Wallace, p. 1058. See also Price, (1995) 69 A.L.J. 32.

¹¹ At p. 853.

¹² (1848) 1 Exch. 850, 855; 154 E.R. 363, 365.

¹³ (1854) 9 Exch. 341; 16 E.R. 145.

¹⁴ At p. 356.

¹⁵ Pell v. Shearman (1855) 10 Ex. 766, 769, 770; 156 E.R. 650, 651, 652.

¹⁶ (1880) 43 L.T. 218 (Exch. D.); (1882) 8 Q.B.D. 357. A recent example is Surrey County Council v. Bredero Homes Ltd. [1993] 1 W.L.R. 1361.

¹⁷ “The Essence of Contract” (1988) 1 J.C.L 91 (Part I), 183 (Part II), especially at 190 et seq. Cf. e.g., Kleinwon Benson Ltd. v. Glasgow City Council [1996] Q.B. 678.

¹⁸ Cf. The Heron II [1966] 2 Q.B. 695, 722–730, per Diplock L.J.

¹⁹ In the course of an interesting discussion, Dawson, (1995) 9 J.C.L. 125 at pp. 125–126, elaborates the same point from a slightly different angle.

²⁰ Cf. Ruxley at pp. 358, 370–371 (though contrast 361); cf. James v. Hutton and Cook Ltd [1950] 1 K.B. 9, 17.

²¹ Cf. Ruxley, at p. 360; The Rozel [1994] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 161, 166–167. The purpose of a negative covenant like a restraint of trade might well be confined to protecting an economic asset.

²² Friedmann, , “The Performance Interest in Damages” (1995) 111 L.Q.R. 628.Google Scholar

²³ Fuller, and Perdue, , “The Reliance Interest in Damages” (1936) 46 Yale L.J. 52Google Scholar, 373.

²⁴ The Common Law, (1881), pp. 300 et seq.; “The Path of the Law” (1896) 10 Harv. L.R. 457.

²⁵ Benjamin's Sale of Goods. 4th ed. (1992), pp. 833–834.Google Scholar A more complete protection of the performance interest would also take account of transaction costs. The law can be similarly blind to the costs of litigation.

²⁶ See Semelhago v. Paramadeven (1996) 136 D.L.R (4th) 1.Google Scholar Torts cases to similar effect were Mummelly v. Calcon Ltd. [1978] I.R. 387 and Pantalone v. Alouie (1989) 18 N.S.W.L.R. 119. Contrast Parramatta C.C. v. Lulz (1988) 12 N.S.W.L.R. 293.

²⁷ At pp. 355–356, 360, 366–369. See also East Ham Corporation v. Bernard Sunley & Sons Ltd. [1966] A.C. 406, 434–435, 445; Linden Gardens Trust Ltd. v. Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd. [1994] 1 A.C. 85, 96; Darlington B.C. v. Wiltshier Northern Ltd. [1995] 1 W.L.R. 68, 79.

²⁸ Ruxley, at pp. 358, 360, 366, 371. And see pp. 557–558 below, at nn. 126–127.

²⁹ [1891] 2Q.B. 31.

³⁰ See p. 555 below, before n. 110.

³¹ [1994] 3 N.Z.L.R. 410.

³² Bunge Corporation v. Tradex [1981] 1 W.L.R. 711.

³³ H. Dakin & Co. Ltd. v. Lee [1916] 1 KB. 566.

³⁴ Johnson v. Agnew [1980] A.C. 367; Radford v. De Froberville [1977] 1 W.L.R. 1262; East Ham Corporation v. Bernard Sunley & Sons Ltd. [1966] A.C. 406.

³⁵ Friedman, (1995) 111 L.Q.R. 628, 631–632.

³⁶ R (in Right of the Province of Ontario) v. Jennings (1966) 57 D.L.R. (2d) 644.

³⁷ N.Z. Wholesale Groceries v. Hewin [1982] 2 N.Z.L.R. 176; Horsburgh v. N.Z. Meat Processors Union [1988] 1 N.Z.L.R. 698.

³⁸ British Transport Commission v. Gourley [1956] A.C. 185.

³⁹ See pp. 547–548 below, at nn. 66 and 67.

⁴⁰ Cf. White Arrow Express Ltd. v. Lamey's Distributors Ltd., 21 July 1995, (C.A.), noted by Beale, (1996) 112 L.Q.R. 205.

⁴¹ This, and the de minimis principle, would answer any objection that to give cost of cure in a case like Ruxley would entail the absurdity of having to do so even if the discrepancy had been only one inch.

⁴² [1972] A.C. 441.

⁴³ [1980] A.C. 827.

⁴⁴ Lord Lloyd did, though suggest that the award had been too large: Ruxley, at p. 374.

⁴⁵ (1880) 5 App. Cas. 25, 39

⁴⁶ [1912] A.C. 673, 689.

⁴⁷ E.g., Cunningham v. Insinger [1924] 2 D.L.R. 433, 439; McGarry v. Richards. Ackroyd & Gall Ltd. [1954] 2 D.L.R. 367, 389; James v. Hutlon and Cooke [1950] 1 K.B. 9; Chilly on Contracts. 27th ed., (1994), Vol. 1, p. 1204;Google ScholarMcGregor on Damages, 15th ed., (1988), p. 26.Google Scholar Phang, [1996] J.B.L. 362, 370–371, characterises cost of cure as “exceptional”.

⁴⁸ Cf. Burrows, Remedies for Torts and Breach of Contract, 2nd ed. (1994), p. 16.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ This seems to be a basic premise of most theories of contract. See e.g. Fried, Contract as Promise: A Theory of Contractual Obligation, (1981); Benson, “The Idea of a Public Basis of Justification for Contract” (1995) 33 O.H.L.J. 273. See also Burrows, op. cit., p. 20; Evans, “The Concept of Legal Power” (1984) 11 N.Z.U.L.R. 149, 163 (the parties define the acts in respect of which the law imposes a duty to perform); South Australia Asset Management Corporation v. York Montague Ltd. [1977] A.C. 191, 211, per Lord Hoffmann (though contrast, p. 212). The point is discussed inCoote, “The Essence of Contract” (1988) 1 J.C.L. 183, 194–195, 196.

⁵⁰ E.g., Gava and Kincaid, “Contract and Conventionalism” (1966) 10 J.C.L. 141, 142, 143, 145; Burrows, op cit.; Enonchong, “Contract Damages for Injury to Reputation” (1966) 59 M.L.R., 592, 599.

⁵¹ (1986), at pp. 280, 282–283.

⁵² See also his An Introduction to the Law of Contract, 5th ed. (1985), p. 41.Google Scholar

⁵³ [1964] A.C. 465.

⁵⁴ Ibid., 529, per Lord Devlin.

⁵⁵ In Hollebone v. Midhurst and Fernhurst Builders Ltd. [1968] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 38,40, the then contemporary editions of Salmond on Torts, Mayne and McGregor on Damages and Street on Damages are cited to this effect. See also Woollongong C.C. v. Fregnan [1982] 1 N.S.W.L.R. 244; Carosella v. Ginos (1981) 46 L.G.R.A. 51. Because the result is not guaranteed, awards against professionals for want of care, even in contract, will normally be based on difference in value: Perry v. Sidney Phillips & Son [1982] 1 W.L.R. 1297.

⁵⁶ E.g. Hollebone v. Midhurst and Fernhurst Builders Ltd. [1968] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 38; Evans v. Balog [1976] 1 N.S.W.L.R. 36; Dodd Property (Kent) Ltd v. Canterbury C.C. [1980] 1 W.L.R. 433; Paramatta C.C. v. Lutz (1988) 12 N.S.W.L.R. 293.

⁵⁷ This might explain the failure of counsel to ask for cost of cure in the contract case cited at nn. 129 and 130 below.

⁵⁸ Cf. Ruxley, at p. 353, per Lord Bridge.

⁵⁹ [1968] A.C. 58, 81, 83, 102. See also Woodar Investment Development Ltd. v. Wimpey Construction UK Ltd. [1980] 1 W.L.R. 277. The position is different in respect of loss suffered by the promisee other than the loss of performance as such: Coulls v. Bagots Executor and Trustee Co. Ltd. (1967) 119 C.L.R. 460, 501–502.

⁶⁰ [1980] Ch. 297.

⁶¹ [1995] 2 A.C. 207.

⁶² (1997) 71 A.L.J.R.487. In New Zealand, the equivalent case is Ganside v. Sheffield, Young & Ellis[1983] NZ.L.R. 37 (C.A.).

⁶³ The one exception seems to have been Nicholls V.-C. in the Court of Appeal in White v. Jones, at pp. 223–224.

⁶⁴ [1993] 1 W.L.R. 1361.

⁶⁵ [1996] 1 Qd. R. 156.

⁶⁶ Beach v. Reed Corrugated Cases Ltd. [1956] 1 W.L.R. 807; Re Houghton Main Colliery Ltd. [1956] 1 W.L.R. 1219; Parsons v. B.N.M. Laboratories Ltd. [1964] 1 Q.B. 95.

⁶⁷ Carter, and Harland, , Contract Law in Australia, 3rd ed., (1996), p. 813.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Fairholme v. Firth & Brown Ltd. (1933) 149 L.T. 332, 332–335; Blackwood v. Andre, 1947 S.C. 333, 333–334.

⁶⁹ See pp. 553–556 below, after n. 100.

⁷⁰ Waddams, , The Law of Damages, 2nd ed., (1995), pp. 1–2.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Ibid.

⁷² P. 543, above, at nn. 36 and 37.

⁷³ H. Dakin & Co. Ltd. v. Lee [1916] 1 K.B. In New Zealand, completion by the building owner could be classed as “cancellation” and enable relief under the Contractual Remedies Act 1979, s. 9.

⁷⁴ This was accepted in British Transport Commission v. Gourley [1956] A.C. 185.

⁷⁵ Dewesv. National Coal Board [1978] A.C. 1, 12–13.

⁷⁶ E.g., Harbutl's Plasticine Ltd. v. Wayne Tank and Pump Co. Ltd. [1970] 1 Q.B. 447; though contrast Cooke v. Rowe [1950] N.Z.L.R. 410; Ryons v. Thomas [1986] I.R. 666.

⁷⁷ Jamalv. Moola Dawood Sons & Co. [1916] 1 A.C. 175.

⁷⁸ E.g., Ribeiro v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (1989) 67 O.R. (2d) 385; Tak & Co. Inc. v. A.EL. Corporation Ltd. (1995) N.Z.B.L.C. 103/887.

⁷⁹ “The General Principles of the Law of Damages”, in Law of Remedies: Principles and Proofs (1995) Law Soc. of Upper Canada, 15, 17.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ See e.g., Burrows, Remedies, 2nd ed., pp. 124–128;Google ScholarTilbury, , Civil Remedies, (1993) Vol. 2, para. 13051–13054.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Cf. Gourley, [1956] A.C. 185, 199, per Earl Jowitt L.C.

⁸² Op cit., para. 553. See also Beale, (1995) 111 L.Q.R. 54.

⁸³ [1977] Ch. 106.

⁸⁴ (1993) 1 W.L.R. 1361. See Goodhart, “Restitutionary Damages for Breach of Contract” [1995] R.L.R. 3 for a contrary argument. Third party beneficiaries have been given a statutory right of enforcement in New Zealand (Contracts (Privity) Act 1982), Western Australia (Property Law Act 1969, s. 11 (2) and Queensland (Property Law Act 1974, s. 55). The English Law Commission has recommended a reform very similar to the New Zealand statute (Privity of Contract: Contracts for the Benefit of Third Parties. Law Comm. 242 (1996)).

⁸⁵ [1991] 1 Q.B. 1.

⁸⁶ [1962] A.C. 446. Compare how in discussion of Appleby v. Meyers (1867) L.R. 2 C.P. 651, “benefit” is ascribed to enjoyment of the use of the machinery rather than to the legal rights which passed when it was affixed to the premises: Cheshire, Fifoot and Furmston's Law of Contract, 12th ed. (1991), p. 589.Google ScholarCf B.P. v. Hunt (No. 2) [1979] 1 W.L.R. 783, 801, per Robert Gough J.

⁸⁷ [1980] 1 W.L.R. 277, 300–301. Compare Coulls v. Bagots Executor and Trustee Co. Ltd. (1967) 119 C.L.R. 460, 501–502.

⁸⁸ [1994] 1 A.C. 85. More strictly, he was addressing himself to St. Martin's Property Corporation v. Sir Robert Me Alpine Ltd., heard and decided at the same time, but the case seems likely to be remembered by the name in the text.

⁸⁹ (1880) 5 App. Cas. 25, 39.

⁹⁰ At pp. 96–97.

⁹¹ Att pp. 95, 96 and 111–112, respectively.

⁹² [1995] 1 W.L.R. 68, 80. See also Ruxley, at p. 360 (“value of the promise to the promisee”).

⁹³ “Privity of Contract: Judicial and Legislative Reform” (1995) 9 J.C.L. 103, 107.

⁹⁴ Darlington B.C. v. Wiltshier Northern Ltd. [1995] 1 W.L.R. 68.

⁹⁵ (1839) 6 Cl. & F. 600, 7 E.R. 824; The Albazero [1977] A.C. 744, 847; Linden Gardens Trust Ltd. v. Lenestra Sludge Disposals Ltd. [1994] 1 A.C. 85; Darlington B.C. v. Wiltshire Northern Ltd. [1995] 1 W.L.R. 68.

⁹⁶ Henderson v. Merrett Syndicates Ltd. [1995] 2 A.C. 145, 195. But see Burrows, “Legislative Reform of Remedies for Breach of Contract: The English Perspective” (1997) 1 E.L.R. 155, 173.

⁹⁷ Seen. 81 above.

⁹⁸ Dunlop v. Lambert (1839) 6 Cl. & F. 600; 7 E.R. 824 and The Albazero [1977] A.C. 744. I t was the justification for t he promisee's claim in The Albazero (“transferred loss”) which Lord Goff held did n o t apply to the situation in White v. Jones [1995] 2 A.C. 207, 266–267.

⁹⁹ Hunt v. Severs [1994] 2 A.C. 350, 363.

¹⁰⁰ Cf. White v. Jones [1995] 2 A.C. 207, 233–234, per Nicholls V.-C.

¹⁰¹ [1891] 2 Q.B.31.

¹⁰² At p. 39.

¹⁰³ At pp. 45, 47–48. See also Inderwick v. Leech (1885) 1 T.L.R. 484.

¹⁰⁴ At p. 45

¹⁰⁵ [1895] 2 Ch. 377.

¹⁰⁶ (1841) 9 C. & P. 734, 739; 173 E.R. 1030, 1033, per Coleridge J.

¹⁰⁷ [1896] A.C. 490.

¹⁰⁸ Ibid.,. at p. 494.

¹⁰⁹ Ibid., at pp. 494–495.

¹¹⁰ Wade, Megarry, Law of Real Properly, 5th ed., (1984), p. 720.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Conveyancing Act 1919, s. 133A (N.S.W.); Property Law Act 1974, s. 112 (Queensland).

¹¹² Aspects of Damages: The Rules in Bain v. Fothergill and Joyner v. Weeks. Report No. 19 (1991).

¹¹³ Ibid, pp. 18,28.

¹¹⁴ [1994] 3 N.Z.L.R. 410.

¹¹⁵ At pp. 418–419.

¹¹⁶ At p. 420.

¹¹⁷ At p. 420.

¹¹⁸ At p. 419.

¹¹⁹ (1832) 1 Moo. & R. 218; 174 E.R. 74.

¹²⁰ At p. 219.

¹²¹ [1916] 1 K.B. 566. See also Miller v. Advanced Farming (1969) 5 D.L.R. (3d) 369.

¹²² [1933] 1 W.W.R. 179.

¹²³ At p. 183.

¹²⁴ (1954)90C.L.R. 613.

¹²⁵ See also Hudson's Building and Engineering Contracts. 1lth ed., pp. 1036–1037;Google Scholar Thornton v. Place (1832) 1 Moo. & R. 218; 174 E.R. 74.

¹²⁶ [1976] 1 N.S.W.R. 36. See also Mertens v. Home Freeholds Co. [1921] 2 K..B. 526; Paramatta C.C. v. Lutz (1988) 12 N.S.W.L.R. 293.

¹²⁷ [1970] 1 Q.B. 447. And see Hollebone v. Midhurst and Femhurst Builders Ltd [1968] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 38.

¹²⁸ Eg. East Ham Corporation v. Bernard Sunley & Sons Ltd. [1996] A.C. 406; Radford v. De Froberville, [1977] 1 W.L.R. 1262; Evans v. Balog, [1976] 1 N.S.W.R.; McGarry v. Richards [1954] 2 D.L.R. 367; Nu West Homes Ltd. v. Thunderbird Petroleums Ltd. (1975) 59 D.L.R. (3d) 292; Strata v. Winkler (1987) 45 D.L.R. (4th) 741.

¹²⁹ Newton Abbot Development Ltd. v. Stockman Bros. (1931) 47 T.L.R. 616; Perry v. Sidney Phillips & Son [1982] 1 W.L.R. 1287.

¹³⁰ Applegate v. Moss [1971] 1 Q.B. 406. The cost of reinstatement was refused by May J. as unreasonable in C.R. Taylor (Wholesale) Ltd v. Hepworth [1997] 1 W.L.R. 659, but that was a torts case.

¹³¹ At pp. 1038–1046.

¹³² (1980) 7 Construction L.J. 125.

¹³³ [1994] 1 W.L.R. 650, 662.

¹³⁴ [1955] 1 W.L.R. 1168.

¹³⁵ Phang [1996] J.B.L. 362 suggests that though the test is objective, it ought to be subjective.

¹³⁶ Ruxley, at pp. 358–359.

¹³⁷ At pp. 358,360,370–371.

¹³⁸ At pp. 353, 358, 360, 370–371.

¹³⁹ Ruxley, at pp. 358, 360, 361, 370–371.

¹⁴⁰ Pp. 557–558 above, at nn. 125 and 126.

¹⁴¹ Nu West Homes Ltd v. Thunderbird Petroleums Ltd. (1975) 59 D.L.R. (3d) 292.

¹⁴² (1921) 129 N.E. 889, 891.

¹⁴³ At pp. 367, 369. And see Darlington B.C. v. Wiltshier Northern Ltd. [1995] 1 W.L.R. 68, 19per Steyn L.J.

¹⁴⁴ At p. 361. And see Tito v. Waddell (No. 2) [1997] Ch. 106, 328.

¹⁴⁵ At p. 354.

¹⁴⁶ Where a choice is possible, a reasonable interpretation of a contract will be preferred, and reasonableness is relevant also to mitigation. But in general there is no requirement at common law that either contracts, or the parties, be reasonable.

¹⁴⁷ See, e.g., Ruxley, at pp. 357, 358; James v. Hutton and Cook Ltd [1950] 1 K.B. 9, 15; C.R Taylor (Wholesale) Ltd. v. Hepworths Ltd. [1972] 1 W.L.R. 659, 670; Radford v. De Froberville [1977] 1 W.L.R. 1262, 1270; Henderson v. Thorn [1893] 2 Q.B. 164, 167; Strata Corp. v. Winkler (1987) 45 D.L.R. (4th) 741, 750; Tito v. Waddell (No. 2) [1977] Ch. 106, 332; Maori Trustee v. Bolton [1971] N.Z.L.R. 226; Harris, Ogus and Phillips, (1979) 95 L.Q.R. 581, 586, 593–594. And see N.Z. Law Commission, Report No. 19 (1991), p. 27.

¹⁴⁸ Pp. 549–553 above, from n. 82, onwards.

¹⁴⁹ [1977] Ch. 106. Other examples are Wigsell v. School for Indigent Blind (1882) 8 Q.B.D. 357; Smiley v. Townshend [1950] 2 K.B. 311, 322–323; McGarry v. Richards. Akroyd & Gall [1954] 2 D.L.R. 367.

¹⁵⁰ A t p. 332.

¹⁵¹ Cf. Carosella v. Ginas (1981) 46 L.G.R.A. 51.

¹⁵² (1882) 8 Q.B.D. 357.

¹⁵³ At p. 364.

¹⁵⁴ [1977] Ch. 106.

¹⁵⁵ [1977] 1 W.L.R. 1262.

¹⁵⁶ At p. 332.

¹⁵⁷ At pp. 1283–1284. See also Jones v. Stroud District Council [1986] 1 W.L.R. 1141, 1150. For other examples, see n. 143 above and Imodco Ltd. v. Wimpey Major Projects Ltd (1987) 40 B.L.R. 1,19; Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v. Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd [1994] A.C. 85.

¹⁵⁸ Shearson v. Lehmann [1980] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 441, 443.

¹⁵⁹ [1891] 2Q.B. 31.

¹⁶⁰ [1950] 1 K.B. 9, 15.

¹⁶¹ (1954) 90 C.L.R. 613. Followed in De Cesare v. Deluxe Motors Ply. Ltd (1996) 67 S.A.S.R. 28 (F.C.S.A.).

¹⁶² Darlington B.C. v. Wiltshier Northern Ltd. [1995] 1 W.L.R. 68, 80. And see pp. 75–76, per Dillon L.J. See also The Alecos M. [1990] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 82, 85 per Steyn J. (rev'd on other grounds [1991] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 120).

¹⁶³ Dean v. Ainley [1987] 1 W.L.R. 1729, 1737–1738.

¹⁶⁴ [1994] 1 W.L.R. 650, 657. There is an analogy, too, with claims in restitution for the recovery of over-paid tax: e.g. Commissioner of State Revenue (Victoria) v. Royal Insurance Australia Ltd. (1994) 182 C.L.R. 51,78–79.

¹⁶⁵ At p. 359. Lord Lloyd, at pp. 372–373, also thought the relevance of intention was to reasonableness and to the extent of the loss.

¹⁶⁶ Ruxley, at p. 359.

¹⁶⁷ At p. 369.

¹⁶⁸ Cf. Darlington B.C. v. Wiltshier Northern Ltd. [1995] 1 W.L.R. 68, 80–81, per Steyn L.J.

¹⁶⁹ E.g., Unfair Contract Terras Act 1977.

¹⁷⁰ (1995)9 J.C.L. 125, 152. Cf. South Australia Asset Management Corporation v. York Montague Ltd. [1997] A.C. 191,211 (“… a duty in respect of the kind of loss which he has suffered”).

¹⁷¹ 11th ed. pp. 1046–1047, 1057–1058.

¹⁷² [1975] 1 N.Z.L.R. 655. Contrast, though, Horieybun v. Harris [1995] 1 N.Z.L.R. 64, 74 75; Tito v. Waddell (No. 2) [1977] Ch. 106, 332.

¹⁷³ Eg., Davis, Greig, The Law of Contract (1987) pp., 1362–1363;Google Scholar Davis, “Damages” in Finn (ed.), Essays in Contract (1987), 200, 203 et seq.

¹⁷⁴ [1993] 1 W.L.R. 1361.

¹⁷⁵ Attorney-General of Hong Kong v. Reid [1994] 1 N.Z.L.R. 1; [1994] 1 A.C. 324.

¹⁷⁶ (1979) 95 L.Q.R. 58, 586.

¹⁷⁷ [1962] A.C. 413

¹⁷⁸ (1954) 90 C.L.R. 613, 618–619.

¹⁷⁹ At p. 367.

¹⁸⁰ [1973] Q.B. 233.

¹⁸¹ At pp. 354, 361, 374.

¹⁸² Ruxley, at p. 374; Baltic Shipping Co. v. Dillon (1993) 176 C.L.R. 344. It is assumed the word “amenity” in Ruxley carries its dictionary connotations of pleasantness.

¹⁸³ (1979) 95 L.Q.R. 581, 593–594.

¹⁸⁴ [1977] Ch. 106.

¹⁸⁵ At pp. 592–594. And see Farnsworth, “Legal Remedies for Breach of Contract” (1970) 70 Col. L.R. 1145, 1160–1175.

¹⁸⁶ Cf. Ruxley, at pp. 353, 360–361.

¹⁸⁷ E.g., Jarvis v. Swam Tours Ltd. [1973] Q.B. 233; Jackson v. Horizon Holidays Ltd. [1975] 1 W.L.R. 1468.

¹⁸⁸ Ruxley, at p. 354, per Lord Bridge.

¹⁸⁹ (1980) 7 Construction L.J. 215.

¹⁹⁰ [1977] Ch. 106.

¹⁹¹ (1882)8 Q.B.D. 357.

¹⁹² [1976] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 250.

¹⁹³ [1991] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 120.

¹⁹⁴ [1993] 1 W.L.R. 1361.

¹⁹⁵ (1848) 1 Exch. 850; 154 E.R. 145.

¹⁹⁶ At p. 1364.

¹⁹⁷ (1854) 9 Ex. 341; 156 E.R. 145.

¹⁹⁸ [1972] 1 Q.B. 60.

¹⁹⁹ [1994] 1 A.C. 85