The case at bar revolves in an issue of obligations and contracts and in a dispute

involving a land previously owned by the petitioner that was sold to the defendant
in a condition that the original planning permission negotiated by the parties shall
be followed. The contract was impaired because the original plan was to only build
72 bungalow houses, but the defendant deviated the plan and resorted to build 77
bungalow houses instead. The petitioner did not seek for an interim injunction to
seek the court’s order to stop the building of the houses but instead they pray for a
collection of sum of money as payment for damages because if they had known the
changes beforehand, they would have increased the value of the sale.

This court in determining as to whether or not the plaintiff has the right to be
compensated considered several jurisprudences to conclude which judgment is
most applicable to the facts of the case. Clearly this case involves a breach of
contract, the court first delved into the most common and basic remedy – to award
damages. However, the court also took into consideration that damages are
intended to compensate a victim for a loss, not to transfer to the victim, if he had
suffered no loss, the benefit which the defendant gained by breaching the contract.
In this case, there is no proof or even an observation that the plaintiff have suffered
or will suffer any loss. The basis of compensation as discussed in the case is the loss
naturally flowing from the breach. So there will be a question on how the court can
assess the amount of damages to be paid, if there is nothing to compensate, as there
is no loss?

The court parked that matter and explored into another point of view saying that
the above rule is not of universal application because there are cases which are
resolved wherein the plaintiff is awarded for damages not because the breach of the
contract placed him in a situation other than in one as if the contract had been
performed but because of the expenditure the plaintiff had wasted because the
contract has not been performed.

Based on the two opinion mentioned, the court is now torn because the basis of
compensation is still loss but it would be unreal to assume that a loss has occurred
so it would be impossible to calculate the damages. In this case what was clear only
is that the defendant will gain. It is not so clear if the plaintiff will lose by agreeing
the building of 77 houses instead of 72. The only scenario mentioned wherein a
plaintiff can recover of the defendant’s gain is in the field of tort – that even if there
is no actual harm, the wrongdoer can be charged. This cannot be applied in the case
at bar for the defendant did not use any property of the plaintiff because they
already bought and own the land in dispute.

The present case was compared to the ruling of the court in the Wrotham Park case
where the court held that in assessing the damages, it would be the amount that
hypothetically the plaintiff would be willing to pay to relax the contract to permit
the defendant to do what it wants to do on the land because of the anticipated
profits for the extra houses built on the land.