Two Problems In Damages
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1960.tb00626.x |
| Published date | 01 July 1960 |
| Author | M. P. Furmston |
| Date | 01 July 1960 |
454
THE MODERN
LAW
REVIEW
VOL.
23
involved in
Bowmakers,
Ltd. v. Barnet Instruments, Ltd.17 and
Singh v.
Ali
leads one to think that not all contracts involving
criminal offences can be grouped together
as
“
totally ineffective.”
In a word, there are crimes and crimes.18 AUBREY L. DIAMOND.
Two
PROBLEMS
IN
DAMAGES
ALTHOUGH
no fundamental question of principle was involved, the
judgment of Buckley
J.
in Diamond v. Campbell-Jones contains
an interesting discussion of two problems in the law of damages.
The defendants had agreed to sell a leasehold house in Mayfair to
the plaintiff for
26,000.
By a judgment dated April
24,
1958,
Harman
J.
declared that the defendants had wrongfully repudiated
the contract and ordered an inquiry as to damages. By agreement
the parties brought the inquiry before Buckley
J.
in court.’
Normally one would not expect such an inquiry to present any
theoretical problem but here the incidence of planning and taxation,
two factors seldom far-distant in modern life, served to complicate
the issue.
The house was held on a lease expiring in
2008
and was sold
subject to a contract between the vendors and the reversioners for
the grant of a new lease,s and also on condition that the permitted
use for planning purposes was that set out in a letter from the
Minister of Housing and Local Government to the vendors’ solicitors,
dated February
15,
1954.
This letter granted permission for the
ground
floor
of the house to be used as offices until December
31,
1970,
provided the windows were curtained and not used for display.
Permission was refused for the remaining four floors and basement
to be used as offices but the letter gave a clear indication that
an application to use the remainder of the house for “multiple
residential use
”
would be very likely to succeed.’
It
was common
ground that the reversioners would be willing in return for an
increase in rent, to accede to a modification of the covenant in the
lease, which required the property to be used as a single private
dwelling-house
so
as
to permit multiple use.
The plaintiff had carried on business as
a
dealer in real estate for
a number of years and during that time had converted a number
of
17
Maximum price and industrial control orders.
18
Cf.
now Cheshire and Fifoot,
op.
cit.,
5th ed., p. 278.
1
[1960] 2
W.L.R.
568; [l96@]
1
All
E.R.
583
2
Such
an
inquiry would,
of
course, normally take place in chambers. See the
remarks of Buckley
J.
at [196@] 2
W.L.R.
574; [1960]
1
All
E.R.
585.
3
This agreement
was
held
by
Harman
J.
to be unenforceable and Buckley
J.
thought it was only relevant
as
showing what was
in
the contemplation of the
parties at the time
of
the contract.
4
i.e.,
to convert the house into maisonettes or flats.
5
The headnote in the
Weekly
Law Reports
is inaccurate in
so
far
as
it suggests
that the Minister had actually granted such permission in
his
letter
of
February 15, 1954.
To continue reading
Request your trial