- This topic has 3 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 5 years ago by
.
- Posts
Why is it this:
“It would be the cost of completing the work to the required specification unless the cost of remedying the defects are disproportionate to the difference in value between what was supplied and what was ordered”
? What Does this mean?
I thought it was just the difference in the value of what the building would be if job done properly to contract, and the value it is now when there has been a breach of contract and agreed terms are not met properly.
Thank you sir
This is illustrated by the 1965 case Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth – worth a read and here’s the link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruxley_Electronics_and_Construction_Ltd_v_Forsyth
You’re correct in querying the case – even the Appeal Court judges got it wrong
But where the ‘damage’ from the breach was not of great significance, one has to say that common sense got in the way
There has been an exam question based on the Ruxley case about a lady (was she called Anne? I can’t remember) that wanted a wall to be built high enough to hide a local tip
Read the Ruxley link and then, if you’re still not completely happy, post again
OK?
So it’s not the cost of fixing the problem to what it should have been, if the cost of remedying it exceeds the actual cost incurred?
Therefore it’s basically what the actual damage incurred is, which may not be the difference in value between what it would be if supplied as contracted, and what the value is when there is breach of contract?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.