Robinson v Harman
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Court | Exchequer |
| Judgment Date | 18 January 1848 |
| Date | 18 January 1848 |
English Reports Citation: 154 E.R. 363
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 18 L. J. Ex. 202. Discussed, Buckley v. Dawson, 1854, 4 Ir. C. L. R. 211; Pounsett v. Fuller, 1856, 17 C. B. 660; Sikes v. Wild, 1861, 1 B. & S. 587: affirmed, 1863, 4 B. & S. 421; Engell v. Fitch, 1868, L. R. 3 Q. B. 323. Applied, Lock v. Furze, 1866, L. R. 1 C. P. 450; Engell v. Fitch, 1869, L. R. 4 Q. B. 665. Adopted, Bain v. Fothergill, 1874, L. R. 7 H. L. 172; Wigsell v. School for Indigent Blind, 1882, 8 Q. B. D. 364. Referred to, Stranks v. St. John, 1867, L. R. 2 C. P. 379; Joyner v. Weeks, (1891) 2 Q. B. 31.
kobinson v. hab.man. Jan. 18, 1848. - Where a party agrees to grant a good and valid lease, having full knowledge that he has no title, the plaintiff in an action for the breach of such agreement, may recover, beyond his expenses, damages resulting from the loss of his bargain ; and the defendant cannot, under a plea of payment of money into court, give evidence that the plaintiff was aware of the defect of title. [S. C. 18 L. J. Ex. 202. Discussed, Buckley v. Dawson, 1854, 4 Ir. C. L. R. 211 ; Pounsett v. Fuller, 1856, 17 C. B. 600 ; Sikex v. fVUil, 1861, 1 B. & S. 587 : affirmed, 1863, 4 B. & S. 421 ; Engell v. Fitch, 1808, L. B. :! Q. B. 32:1. Applied, Lock v. Furze, 1866, L. R. 1 C. P. 450; Enyell v. Fitch, 1869, L. E. 4 Q. B. 665. Adopted, Bain v. FotheryiU, 1874, L. E. 7 H. L. 172; Wigadl v. School for Indigent Blind, 1882, 8 Q, B. D. 364. Referred to, Strains v. St. John, 1867, L. E. 2 'C. P. 379 ; Joyner v. IFeeks, [1891] 2 (.},. B. 31.] Assumpsit on an agreement in writing, dated the 15th April, 1846, whereby the defendant agreed " to grant and deliver to the plaintiff a good and valid lease of a certain dwelling-house, &c., and other hereditaments and premises in the agreement mentioned, for a term of twenty-one years from the 29th day of September then next ensuing, at the yearly rent of £110," &c. The declaration set out the agreement in terms, and, after alleging mutual promises, averred that, although the plaintift' had always been ready and willing to accept a lease, yet the defendant did not nor would grant a good and valid lease of the said dwelling-house, &c., and discharged the plaintiff from preparing and tendering such lease, and wholly neglected and refused to grant or deliver the said or any lease whatever of the said hereditaments and premises ; " whereby the plaintiff' lost and was deprived of great gains aud ptofits, which would otherwise have accrued to him, and paid, expended, and incurred liability to pay divers sums of money, in and about the preparation of the said agreement and lease, &c., amounting, to wit, to .£20," Plea, payment of £25 into court, and no damages ultra. The plaintiff replied damages ultra, upon which issue was joined. At the...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
- Fazaruddin bin Ibrahim v Parkson Corporation Sdn Bhd (No.2)
- Tan Sri Khoo Teck Puat v Plenitude Holdings Sdn Bhd, SC
-
Surrey County Council and Another v Bredero Homes Ltd
...same position as if the contract had been performed. That follows the wording of the statement of the rule of the common law by Baron Parke in Robinson -v- Harman [1848] 1 Ex. 850 at 855. That rule has been referred to in argument in the present case as the "conventional" rule. 21 Sir Willi......
-
Jaya Offshore Pte Ltd v World Marine Co Ltd
... ... due to WMC have to be such that the same would put WMC in the position it would have been in if the contract had been performed properly (Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Exch 850 at 855). The failure of Jaya to effect insurance for the hull value of the tug did not cause any loss, for nothing ... ...
-
Complex Commercial Litigation Law Review - Fifth Edition - England & Wales
...for agreed sums and liquidated damages. Agreed remedies are subject to the rule against penalties, discussed below.69 Robinson v. Harman (1848) 1 Ex 850.© 2022 Law Business Research England and Wales85A key further restriction on the recovery of damages for breach of contract is remoteness.......
-
Damaged goods: High price paid for breach of warranty
...J confirmed the principle in Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v Bowen Investments Pty Ltd (2009) 236 CLR 272, which originated in Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Exch 850; 154 ER 363, that damages for breach of contract are to put the promisee, so far as money can do it, in the same situation as if the cont......
-
Construction & Infrastructure - What's News - 3 February 2015
...Ltd (1995) 185 CLR 410 Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1982) 149 CLR 337 Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Ex 850 Shevill v Builders Licensing Board (1982) 149 CLR 620. More... Durham v Adjudicator Registrar [2014] QCAT 666 Production of documents - relevanc......
-
It Ain't Over Till It's Over
...A Turk S/A TR v International Agri Trade Co Ltd (The Selda) [1998] 1 Lloyd's Rep 416 (Clarke J) 7 [2007] 2 AC 353 8 Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Exch 850 (Parke The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about y......
-
Damages
...Contractual Duties: Performance, Breach, Termination and Remedies (3rd edn, Sweet and Maxwell 2020) 21.37 to 21.39. 23 (1848) 1 Exch R 850; 154 ER 363 (Court of Exchequer). 24 ibid. 25 Parke B’s celebrated and seminal encapsulation in Robinson v Harman of the expectation interest measure of......
-
Chapter 13. Damages
...Telecommunications Ltd v Starhub Cable Vision Ltd [2006] SGCA 5 at [49]. 8 Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Exch 850 at 855, per Parke B [154 ER 363 at 365]; Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co (1880) 5 App Cas 25 at 39, per Lord Blackburn; British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company Limit......
-
Damages
...if the seller refuses to deliver the goods, the purchaser is normally entitled to claim the difference between the 7 (1848), Exch 850, 154 ER 363. 8 Ibid at 855 (Exch). 9 [1911] AC 301 (PC). 10 Ibid at 307. 11 See Section C, below in this chapter. 12 In a case where the builder does not com......
-
Contract Law
...the contractual promisor breaches his contractual promise(s)? This is discussed at paras 12.156–12.169 below. 198 Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Exch 850 at 855, cited with approval in Turf Club Auto Emporium Pte Ltd v Yeo Boong Hua [2018] 2 SLR 655 at [123]. Although Wrotham Park damages award......
