This is an extract of our East V. Maurer document, which we sell as part of our Commercial Remedies BCL Notes collection written by the top tier of Oxford students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Commercial Remedies BCL Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
EAST V. MAURER FACTS Ever changing style and fashion makes the ability to attract and satisfy intending customers a particularly valuable asset in the proprietor of a ladies' hair styling salon. According to the evidence, it was an attribute possessed by the first defendant who, in 1979, owned two salons in Bournemouth which he carried on under the name of Roger de Paris. One of the salons was at 44, Haven Road, Canford Cliffs. It had only recently been opened under the managership of a Mr. Mole. The other salon, at 37, Exeter Road, was closer to the centre of the town. The first defendant had, by 1979, been there, first as an employee and then as its proprietor since 1958. By 1979, he had decided to concentrate his efforts at a smaller and more exclusive salon, he had decided to sell his Exeter Road business and to devote all his energies to Canford Cliffs. The plaintiffs bought the business at Exeter Road from him in September 1979. The second plaintiff, Mrs. East, intended to continue the business, but under the style and name of "Xellance." Misrepresentation by the defendant He told them falsely that he had no intention of working at the Canford Cliffs salon unless, for example a staff emergency arose due to illness or for some other reason. He told them that he intended to open a salon abroad, probably in Switzerland. Such an intention obviously meant that his valuable personal contact with the clientele at Exeter Road could not follow him to the Continent and would probably not follow him to the Canford Cliffs salon because he would not be working there. His representations would obviously play a most significant part in inducing the plaintiffs to buy the salon, and so the judge held. He found that the representations were false to the first defendant's knowledge, and held that the plaintiffs were entitled to damages. QUESTION In addition to the sums already mentioned, he awarded the plaintiffs loss of profits during the 31/4-year period arriving at a figure of PS15,000. It is against the award of PS15,000 for loss of profit that the defendants now appeal. HOLDING Difference between damages for deceit and damages in contract That the measure of damages for the tort of deceit and for breach of contract are different, no longer needs support from authority.
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Commercial Remedies BCL Notes.