The defendant contracted with the claimant for the construction of an enclosed swimming pool in his garden. The contract terms required that the maximum depth of the pool should be 7' 6"; in fact, it was later discovered to be only 6' 9" as a maximum, and only 6' at the diving point. When the claimants claimed the unpaid balance of the purchase price, the defendant counterclaimed for breach of contract. The trial judge found as a fact that the pool as constructed was perfectly safe to dive into, and that there was no difference in value between the swimming pool contracted for and that supplied. He refused to award the claimed cost of cure damages of £21,560 so that the specified depth could be achieved, on the basis that it would be unreasonable to award such damages, which were 'wholly disproportionate to the disadvantage'


No comments have yet been made