I agree. The damage was assessed according to the general rule of law that a person who concludes a contract and breaches it must pay all damages suffered. An exception to this general rule was grafted to this general rule by Flureau v. Thornhill and another exception was grafted into this exception in Hopkins v. Grazebrook. This case falls under the jurisdiction of the Commission, which has restored the old common law rule. Therefore, the defendant, who has undertaken to grant a valid lease without title color, must compensate the plaintiff for the damage suffered by not having the damage for which he entered into a contract. The rule must be made. The defendant agreed to grant a good and valid lease, and the learned judge was correct when he rejected the evidence that would alter the contract permitted by the lawsuit. The next question is what damages the plaintiff is entitled to.
The common law rule is that if a party suffers damage as a result of a breach of contract, he must, to the extent that money can do so, be placed in the same position with respect to damages as if the contract had been performed. Flureau v. Thornhill restricted this common law rule. There, it was decided that contracts for the sale of real estate are concluded only on the condition that the seller has a good title; Thus, when a person enters into a contract for the sale of real estate, it is implicitly understood that if he does not make a good title, the only recoverable damage is the costs that may be imposed on the seller during the examination of the property. This case falls within the common law rule and I cannot distinguish it from Hopkins v. Grazebrook. The common law rule is that if a party suffers damages as a result of a breach of contract, he or she will be placed in the same position as if the contract had been performed in terms of damages, to the extent that money can do so. Parke B set out the classic formulation of the objectives of contractual damages: Quotations: (1848) 1 Exchequer Reports (Welsby, Hurlstone and Gordon) 850; (1848) 154 ER 363. In principle, I cannot distinguish this case from Hopkins v.
Grazebrook. “has lost and has been deprived of substantial profits and profits which would otherwise have been made to him, and has paid, consumed, and assumed the obligation to pay various sums of money, during and in connection with the preparation of the said agreement and lease, etc., which amounted to £20. Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Ex Rep 850 is an English treaty case best known for Parke B`s classic formulation (at 855) on the subject matter and amount of damages for breach of contract, the Held (Court of Exchequer): appeal dismissed; C was entitled to compensation of £200 The court ruled in favour of the plaintiff. They were entitled to compensation for loss of business. The defendant agreed to provide the plaintiff with a valid lease for a house and associated land for twenty-one years. In return, the applicant would pay annual rent. The defendant broke the agreement and refused to grant the lease. It was because he did not have the right to grant this lease. As a result, the plaintiff lost profits that he would have made using the land. The plaintiff brought an action for recovery of lost profits. Key point: Damages for breach of contract compensate for loss of hope M. Harman wrote a letter dated 15 April 1846 in which he undertook to grant Mr Robinson a lease for a house in High Street, Croydon, for 21 years, beginning on 19 September for £110 a annum.
 Then Mr. Harman changed his mind and refused to enter into the lease. It turned out that the house was worth much more than £110 a year. Mr. Harman had inherited the property from his recently deceased father. Although Mr Robinson`s lawyer (whose fee was £15 12s 8d) had questioned whether the will could have transferred ownership to the trustees, Mr Harman had stated that there was no such thing, that it was his property and that only he had the power to rent. In fact, the trustees had received the property, and Mr. Harman was entitled to only a portion of the rent during his lifetime. On account of that failure, Mr Robinson insisted, in accordance with the plea, that the applicant could not obtain compensation for the damage caused by his undertaking.  Lord Denman CJ heard the trial at the Surrey Spring Assizes. It concluded that Mr Robinson was entitled to £200 (including legal costs) to cover Mr Robinson`s loss as a result of his failure to obtain the house.
Mr. Harman appealed. The Treasury has decided that if a party agrees to grant a valid and valid lease, despite knowing full well that it has no title, the plaintiff may seek damages for the loss of its business in an action for breach of that agreement in addition to its costs; and the defendant cannot prove in court that the plaintiff was aware of the defect in the context of a means of payment of money. Parke B`s judgment was as follows. Are you in the contract? See our premium contract notes So, if a claimant would have received gains if the contract had been executed, these lost profits are refundable.