免责声明:本网站不构成法律建议。法律法规和判例法会发生变化。请务必就您的具体情况咨询合格的律师。

所有案例
Contract Law
House of Lords
1996

Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth

[1996] AC 344

判决理由

The cost of reinstatement is not always the appropriate measure of damages for defective performance. Where reinstatement would be unreasonable or disproportionate, the court may award damages for loss of amenity or diminution in value instead.

事实

Forsyth contracted Ruxley to build a swimming pool 7ft 6in deep. The pool was built to only 6ft 9in deep, though it was still safe for diving. Forsyth claimed £21,560 for the cost of rebuilding the pool. The trial judge awarded £2,500 for loss of amenity instead.

判决摘要

The House of Lords upheld the £2,500 award. Lord Jauncey held that the cost of reinstatement was grossly disproportionate to the benefit obtained — the pool was perfectly usable. The appropriate measure was loss of amenity reflecting the consumer surplus of the bargain.

关键引述

"Damages are designed to compensate for an established loss and not to provide a gratuitous benefit to the aggrieved party."

Lord Jauncey

后续处理

Good law

Leading authority on the assessment of damages for defective performance, particularly the choice between cost of cure and diminution in value.