P agreed to purchase, sell and distribute D’s products at a price list set by D, following a misrepresentation by D that D would not be selling any products below the prices below the prices that D was buying at. In fact D did sell more cheaply to other clients. It was also established that had the misrepresentation not occurred, P would still have entered the contract but on better terms as to price, and so could have had greater profits. He sued for these higher profits. CA awarded him the profits he would have made had he entered into the contract on the same price terms as those other customers had been getting. CA said there is no absolute rule requiring that the transaction fraudulently induced be loss making (P had still been making a profit) and it was possible for P to show that but for the misrepresentation he would have entered into a better agreement, and for losses to be claimed on the difference between what he would have gained and what he did in fact gain.