000			01656cab a2200241 4500
001			ABS53197
008			090401t1995 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u2602
041			_aeng
245			_aRuxley Electronics and Constructions Ltd v Forsyth; Laddingford Enclosures Ltd v Forsyth
260			_c1995
350			_a0
490			_aWeekly Law Reports _v(1995) 3 WLR 118-140(23)
520			_aHL 29 June 1995. At issue was whether the cost of rectifying a defect in the construction of swimming pool, was recoverable. The contract specified a diving depth of 7ft 6ins, but on completion, the depth was only 6ft. Although there was no adverse effect on the value of the property, the cost of rebuilding the pool to the correct specifications was over £21,000. Judgment for R and L on their claims for the outstanding balance of the contractual price, and an award to F of £2,500 for loss of amenity, dismissing F`s counterclaim for breach of contract, holding that the claim for reinstatement costs was unreasonable. F appealed to the CA. CA allowed the appeal on the basis that the loss as a result of the breach of contract was the amount required to place him in the same position as he would have been had the contract been performed. R and L appealed to the HL. Held, allowing the appeal, that where expenditure was out of proportion to the benefit to be obtained, the measure of damages.
650			_aBREACH OF CONTRACT
650			_aDAMAGES
650			_aDIMINUTION IN VALUE
650			_aMEASURE OF DAMAGES
650			_aSWIMMING POOL
690			_aBUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION-CASE LAW
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c1570 _d1570