Contract for sale of land – Part of agreed land sold to another before completion – Plaintiffs’ action for breach of contract successful – Judge awarding damages and interest – Plaintiffs contending amount awarded too little – Plaintiffs’ appeal dismissed
Mr and Mrs D, the plaintiffs, entered into a contract on June 17 1985 with the defendant for the sale of two adjacent properties for the sum of £32,500. On one piece of land there was a bungalow and on the other, a triangular shaped area, the triangle, there were two garages. On August 21 1985 when the time came for completion, the defendant was able to convey the bungalow but not the triangle which he had in the meantime sold to someone else for £2,500, his solicitors having included the triangle by mistake in a sale contract. It was agreed that £2,500 be paid into a solicitors joint account. The absence of the triangle deprived the plaintiffs of land on which to park their car. One day before the end of the six-year limitation period the plaintiffs brought an action against the defendant for breach of contract. The defendant denied liability claiming that the plaintiffs were aware that the triangle did not form part of the agreement and seeking rectification of the contract. The judge found in favour of the plaintiffs and awarded damages which he assessed at £5,250 being £4,250 for the value of the garages plus £1,000 for the marriage value or special value to the owner of the bungalow, plus the £2,500 already paid in with all the interest between August 21 1985 and trial, and the defendant was also to pay interest at 10% pa on the balance of the outstanding sum of £2,750 for the full period from August 21 1985 to trial. The plaintiffs appealed against the amount of damages and interest contending that the judge’s assessment failed to reflect the deprivation of parking space and that without the triangle the bungalow was virtually worthless.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
1. The plaintiffs had been entitled to be put in the same position as they would have been in had the contract been properly performed. The law required that the amount of damages to which the plaintiffs were entitled was the difference at completion between the open market value of the bungalow with the triangle and the open market value of the bungalow without the triangle. The special value to those affected by the valuation was not a consideration. The judge had taken the evidence of the expert valuers and based his decision on that. The plaintiffs had not shown that he was plainly wrong.
2. Although the delay both in bringing the action and subsequently may not have been the plaintiffs’ fault, there was no reason in the circumstances why the delay should be put at the door of the defendant to the extent of awarding interest at a rate containing an element of penal interest. The award at a building society rate was compensatory and within the discretion of the judge.
The appellants appeared in person; Nigel Godsmark (instructed by Barlow Lyde & Gilbert) appeared for the respondent.
