Robinson v Harman [1848] 1 Exch 850

KEY POINTS

• In cases of contract breach, the injured party should receive damages that restore them financially to the position they would have been in if the contract had been fulfilled.

FACTS

• Mr. Harman initially agreed to lease a house to Mr. Robinson, but later refused. The house's value exceeded the agreed rent. Mr. Harman, who had inherited the property, misled Robinson about his ownership and leasing authority.

• Due to the alleged breach of contract, Mr. Robinson lost potential gains and incurred expenses, leading to a claim of £20 in damages. Mr. Harman contested the plaintiff's right to recover losses from the failed deal.

JUDGEMENT

• The court ruled in favour of Robinson.

COMMENTARY

• This case underscores the importance of monetary compensation as a means to rectify the harm caused by contractual breaches. It highlights the courts' role in ensuring fairness and equity in contractual relationships by providing remedies that appropriately address financial losses.

ORIGINAL ANALYSIS

• Parke B:

As to the damages which plaintiff is entitled to recover, the rule of the common law is, that a party who has sustained loss by reason of a breach of contract is, with respect to damages, to be placed in the same situation as he would have been in if the contract had been performed

• This was about a lease being cancelled. The key point is the dictum of Parke B.