Robinson v Harman
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 January 1848 |
| Date | 18 January 1848 |
| Court | Exchequer |
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Tan Sri Khoo Teck Puat v Plenitude Holdings Sdn Bhd, SC
- Fazaruddin bin Ibrahim v Parkson Corporation Sdn Bhd (No.2)
-
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......
-
Omak Maritime Ltd v Mamola Challenger Shipping Company Ltd
...[2007] 2 AC 353 ) and are designed to put the innocent party in the position he would have been in had the contract been performed (see Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Exch.850 ) rather than the position he would have been in had no contract been made (see C&P Haulage v Middleton [1983] 1 WL......
-
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
...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......
-
WORKPLACE SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN SINGAPORE: THE LEGAL CHALLENGE
...For a local case, see Francis v Municipal Councillors of Kuala Lumpur[1962] MLJ 407 (PC on appeal from Malaysia). 168 Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Exch 850; Radford v De Froberville[1978] 1 All ER 33. In Gunac Enterprises (Pte) Ltd v Utraco Pte Ltd[1995] 1 SLR 11 (not an employment case), the......
-
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......
-
Contract Law
...so far as money can do it, in the position he or she would have been in, had the contract been fully performed: Robinson v Harman(1848) 1 Exch 850 at 855. The history behind this principle is outlined in G Washington, ‘Damages in Contract at Common Law’(1932) 48 LQR 90. Keeping that in mind......