If the contracts had been worded differently, it is clear that there could have been provision for the payment of an extra price for additional houses built - but that is not the contract which is made. The starting point is that the common law remedy of damages for breach of contract was to compensate victim for loss, not to transfer to the victim the benefit which the wrongdoer had obtained - Chitty on Contract. This conventional rule is to place P in the same position as if the contract had been performed. Argued that some cases require to recoup wasted expenditure because the contract has not been performed. The principle is still compensation for loss.
Every student is taught that the basis for damages is Hadley.
This may include profit which P has lost, but will not award to P profit which D has gained. In tort the position is different, and there are some areas where P can recover in respect of Ds gain. A person may be charged for a trespass, even where no harm has been done - wayleaves, patent infringement, tipping. This site is maintained by the Electronic Publishing Group at UniServe Law . Use our comments form or an address in contact details .