Loss of Enjoyment Flashcards
What happened in Addis v Gramophone and what is the principle?
Addis was employed by the company and could be dismissed on 6 months notice. The defendant sacked the claimant on six month notice but appointed another person in his place and prevented him from doing his job. At trial the jury awarded damages for wrongful dismissal including a sum that reflected the harsh and humiliating way that the claimant had been dismissed. “the pain he experienced by imputation upon him conveyed by the manner of his dismissal”. The house of Lords held that such damages were not recoverable. The claimant’s entitlement to damages extended only to lost salary commission, i.e. the economic losses arising from the breach of contract.
The principle is that the courts did not and would not allow claims for mental distress of this nature. (although this is not the same as mental illness arising from a breach).
What happened in Jarvis v Swans Tours and what was the principle?
The claimant was a solicitor who booked a holiday with the defendant’s skiing company. He was made a whole host of promises, most of which were a major disappointed (a yodeller, house parties, skiing, English speaking owner). He claimed for loss of enjoyment damages and won. The principle being that because enjoyment was the main purpose of the contract and he didn’t receive it, the contract itself was breached in his loss of enjoyment.
“In a proper case damages for mental distress can be recovered in contract, just as damages for shock can be recovered in tort. One such case is a contract for a holiday, or any other contract to provide entertainment and enjoyment. If the contracting party breaks his contract, damages can be given for the disappointment, the distress, the upset and frustration caused by the breach. I know that this is difficult to assess in terms of money, but it is no more difficult than the assessment which the courts have to make every day in personal injury cases for loss of amenities… Here, Mr Jarvis’s fortnight winter holiday had been a grave disappointment. It is true that he was conveyed to Switzerland and back and had meals and a bed in the hotel. But that is not what he went for. He went to enjoy himself with all the facilities which the defendant said he would have”.
Jackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd what happened and how is this relevant?
The claimant booked a holiday. The brochure described it in glowing terms. The holiday in no way met the standards (and in fact failed them miserably).He claimed for damages and won.
this principle confirmed Jarvis v Swans Tours
Heywood v Wellers
A lawyer negligently failed to get an injunction against a stalker. Heywood sued and won, because the primary purpose of the contract was to provide relief from some distress.
This simply backs up Jarvis in a different context.
Bailey v Bullock
A lawyer failed negligently to conform the sale of a house, as a result the Bailey’s ended up living in the wife’s parents house. Damages were claimed for physical inconvenience.
Damages are awardable for physical inconvenience caused by negligence.
Cox v Philip Industries
This case was difficult to reconcile with Addis v Gramophone and was later overturned by Bliss v South East Thames Area Health Authority, but this was an employee who received damages for distress and anxiety.
Bliss v South East Thames Area Health Authority
The claimant was a consultant surgeon who was required by his employers, the defendant health authority, the undergo a psychiatric examination. The claimant refused and, having been suspended by the defendants, sought damages for breach of contract. The trail judge’s award included an element of damages for mental distress and anxiety. The court of appeal disallowed it.
Dillon LJ explained:
“Modern thinking tends to be that the amount of damages recoverable for a wrong should be the same whether the cause of action is laid in contract or in tort, but in the Addis case, Lord Loreburn regarded the rule that damages for injured feelings cannot be recovered in contract for wrongful dismissal as too inveterate to be altered”. Citing Jarvis v Swans Tours AND Heywood v Wellers Dillon LJ regonised an exception where the contract “was itself a contract to provide peace of mind and freedom from distress”.
Hayes v James and Charles Dodd
Passageway to business was blocked. Damages not available for vexation in business context since the company only had a view to profit and the ‘sole purpose’ was not enjoyment, it was profit.
Staughton LJ in the court of appeal affirmed the approach of Dillon LJ in the Bliss case and stated:
“it may be that the class is somewhat wider than that. But it should not, in my judgement include any case where the object of the contract was not comfort or pleasure, or the relief of discomfort, but simply carrying on the commercial activity with a view to profit”
What happened in Watts v Morrow
In this case Bingham LJ took the opportunity to clarify the scope of the exceptions to the general rule.
The claimants had purchased a farmhouse in the country as a weekend retreat from their stressful city jobs. In purchasing they relied on a surveyor’s report given to them by the defendant. In breach of contract, the defendants report was carried out negligently and wrongly concluded that there were no major defects. In fact, the claimants had to spend almost 34,000 on repairs to the house; the property at the time of the purchase was worth about £15,000 less than they had paid for it; and for the eight months while the repairs were being carried out the claimants had to endure discomfort and inconvenience of staying at the house over the weekends. The Court of Appeal awarded the claimants damages for diminution in the value of the house but not for the cost of repairs. A £4000 mental distress was given but this was disallowed by the CoA.
Bingham LJ stated that the contract breaker is not liable “for any distress, frustration, anxiety, displeasure, vexation, tension or aggrivation which his breach of contract may cause to the innocent party”.
What were the rules laid out by Bingham LJ in Watts v Morrow regarding mental distress/loss of enjoyment
“But the rule [that the contract breaker is not liable for general mental distress] is not absolute. Where the very object of the contract is to provide pleasure, relaxation, peace of mind or freedom from molestation, damages will be awarded if the fruit of the contract is not provided or if the contrary result is procured instead…. A contract to survey a house for a prospective purchaser does not fall within this exceptional category, damages are in my view recoverable for physical inconvenience and discomfort caused by the breach and mental suffering directly related to that inconvenience or discomfort”.
Alaxander v Rolls Royce Motor Cars
Garage had breached agreement to repair a car. The contract did not fall within this special exception and was not analogous to contract for a holiday-it was a contract to repair a car rather than to provide a pleasurable experience. CoA did not award damages.
Bingham LJ states 2 things by which damages for non-pecuniary loss are recoverable. What are they?
1) Where the “very object” of the contract is to provide a pleasurable experience or;
2) Where the breach of contract causes physical inconvenience.
In Farley v Skinner, what happened?
The claimant, who wished to acquire a peaceful countryside residence, became interested in a property called Riverside House in Sussex. It was situation some 15 miles from Gatwick Airport and the claimant wanted to be sure that it was not seriously affected by aircraft noise. The claimant instructed the defendant, a surveyor, to carry out the usual structural survey AND to investigate whether the house would be affected by aircraft noise. The defendant reported that it was unlikely that the property would suffer greatly from such noise. The claimant purchased the property for £420,000 and then spent in the region of £125,000 on modernisation and refurb.
property was affected by aircraft noise. Near navigation beakon where aircraft stacked before landing.
There was no diminution in value, so damages for that were dismissed, however, £10,000 were awarded for distress consequent upon physical inconvenience. i.e. The second of Bingham LJ’s exceptions.
Court of appealed overturned decision. House of Lords overturned it again restoring the trial judges original decision.
The “sole purpose” of the surveyors contract was to provide peace of mind by checking there was no aircraft noise. This fell into the damages scope of “physical inconvenience”
This is a significant re-interpretation of Bingham’s original statement.
What did Lord Steyn say in Farley v Skinner in regards to the ‘sole purpose’ of the contract?
“There is no reason in principle or policy why the scope of recovery in the exceptional category should depend on the object of the contract as ascertained from all its constituent parts. It is sufficient if a major or important object of the contract is to give pleasure, relaxation or peace of mind”.
What qualifications did the House of Lords add to the Watts v Morrow exceptions given by Lord Bingham?
Lord Scott explained that “the Adjective Physical, in the phrase “physical inconvenience and discomfort” requires…some explanation or definition. The distinction between the “physical” and “non-physical” is not always clear and may depend on the context. Is being awoken at night by aircraft noise “physical?” If it is, is being unable to sleep because of worry and anxiety “physical”? The critical distinction to be drawn is not a distinction between the different types of inconvenience or discomfort of which complaint may be made but a distinction based on the cause of the inconvenience or discomfort. If the cause is no more than disappointment that the contractual obligation has been broken, damages are not recoverable even if the disappointment has led to a complete mental breakdown. But if the cause of inconvenience or discomfort is sensory (sight, touch, hearing, smell etc) experience, damages can, subject to the remoteness rules, be recovered. “
