ChD 24 February 1989. The second stage of proceedings brought by a purchaser (C) against a vendor (D). Litigation arose out of statements made before a contract, for the sale of premises in Soho . In the first stage of the proceedings, C`s claim for misrepresentation was upheld. In the second stage, the point at issue was quantification of damages . The misrepresentation related to failure to disclose deeds which revealed rights to light and air, enjoyed by the property adjoining C`s. C had started re development work these rights were revealed; consequently the schemes had to be partially redesigned and completion was delayed. Three alternative bases of claim were put forward: 1) £514,984 on the developer`s loss basis ; 2) £750,000 onjthe market value basis or 3)£854,471 on the hybrid basis. The judge emphasised the difficulty in making residual valuation s of prospective developments, because so much is based on assumption. In the end damages were assessed on the additional constru