||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 476 (Oct)
||Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Aldous and Dyson LJJ
||Peter Sheridan QC and Donald McCue (instructed by Gulbenkian Harris Andonian) for the claimants.
||Derek Wood QC (instructed by Virdee & Virdee) for the second defendant.
||The fourth defendant appeared in person.
||31 October 2002
Damages and compensation - Assessment of damages - Breach of warranty - Approach to assessment of damages for breach of warranty.
Damages for breach of warranty were calculated by the extent to which a claimant would have been better off had the information he had been given been correct. In the instant case, the claimants would have been no better off had the fourth defendant been correct when he had impliedly warranted to them that he had authority on behalf of the first defendant to bind it in the sale of a property, since in any event the claimants would not have been in a position to complete that sale on the completion date. Accordingly, the judge's award of nominal damages for breach of warranty had been correct.
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary