Damages — Breach of contract — Sketch design of plaintiffs’ requirements shown to architect — Desire for imposing staircase and landing emphasised — Architect’s design failing to meet requirements — Whether general damages for disappointment and distress could be recovered against architect — Judge precluded from making award because of decision of Court of Appeal in Watts v Morrow — Court of Appeal upholding that decision — Judgment for defendants
The plaintiffs engaged the defendants to design a house known as Thorneswood, Bridgnorth, Shropshire, which they aimed to be their ideal home. They showed a sketch design of what they wanted, incorporating a 4-ft wide staircase and galleried landing, with the gallery returning over the stairs for the full width of the hall. The plaintiffs emphasised that they felt that the staircase and landing had let down their former home and stressed the desire for an imposing hall and staircase. The work began, but there were design problems and the structure desired could not be fitted into the hall. The gallery could only be accommodated with a two-step-up design, which the plaintiffs disliked and rejected; the staircase was about 2ft 10ins wide. The problems were not drawn to the plaintiffs’ attention until it was too late to remedy the situation.
The plaintiffs claimed damages against the defendants for breach of contract. One head of damage was for distress. The judge held that damages could be awarded only for discomfort and inconvenience with a physical origin. Purpose and motive had to be distinguished. The object of this contract was for the defendants to carry out professional duties with skill and care. An architect did not warrant a result, but had to use due care and skill. Applying the ratio of the Court of Appeal in Watts v Morrow [1991] 2 EGLR 152, the judge held that unless the conferring of pleasure was the very purpose of the contract, a claim for disappointment could not be awarded. The plaintiffs appealed arguing that this case fell within the special class of cases where damages were recoverable; ie the very object of the contract was to confer pleasure.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
1. A contract breaker was not in general liable for any distress, frustration, anxiety, displeasure, vexation, tension or aggravation which his breach of contract might cause to the innocent party. But that rule was not absolute, where the very object of a contract was to provide pleasure, relaxation, peace of mind or freedom from molestation, damages would be awarded if the fruit of the contract was not provided or if the contrary result was procured instead: see Watts v Morrow (supra).
2. The words “the very object of a contract” were crucial within the context of the present case. The object was to design a house for the plaintiffs. The provision of pleasure was not the very object of the contract. There was nothing in the contractual relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendants to indicate that they in any sense warranted or expressed themselves contractually bound to provide the pleasure of occupation. Neither did the plaintiffs contend that they had suffered any physical inconvenience or discomfort. This was not a case where mental distress was part of the physical inconvenience caused.
3. The true nature of the contract was not to provide pleasure. It was that which any architect entered into in any situation — to design a home. The provision of pleasure was necessarily ancillary to that purpose. In the circumstances the decision in Watts v Morrow was binding on the court.
Jeremy Cousins (instructed by Goldinghams, of Stroud) appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs; Hugh Evans (instructed by Pinsent & Co, of Birmingham) appeared for the defendants.
