## Facts

- A television company planned to produce a filmed play and incurred pre-production expenses before hiring the lead actor, including fees for a director, designer, stage manager, and assistant, totaling about £2,750.
- An actor, through his agent, agreed to come to England during a specified period to rehearse and perform for a substantial fee plus travel and living expenses, subject to a work permit.
- The required work permit was obtained.
- Shortly after contracting, the company learned the actor had a conflicting booking in the United States.
- The actor’s agent notified the company that the actor would not perform, repudiating the contract.
- The company could not secure a suitable replacement, accepted the repudiation, and abandoned the production.
- The company did not claim lost profits; it sought reliance damages for wasted expenditure, including costs incurred before the actor was engaged.

## Issues

1. Whether a claimant who elects reliance damages for breach of contract may recover wasted expenditure incurred before the contract was made, when that expenditure was foreseeably wasted due to the breach.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal dismissed the actor’s appeal and upheld the damages award.
- The claimant could elect to recover reliance damages (wasted expenditure) instead of uncertain expectation damages (lost profits).
- Recoverable wasted expenditure could include pre-contract costs if they were reasonably within the parties’ contemplation as likely to be wasted if the contract were breached.
- The claimant recovered the full claimed expenditure of approximately £2,750, including pre-contract items.

## Legal Principles

- A claimant may elect between expectation damages (lost profits) and reliance damages (wasted expenditure) for breach of contract, but may not recover both for the same loss.
- Reliance damages are available where anticipated profits are difficult or impossible to prove with sufficient certainty.
- Wasted expenditure may include amounts spent before contracting if, at the time of contract formation, such expenditure was reasonably contemplated by the parties as likely to be wasted upon breach.
- The claimant must show the breach caused the expenditure to be wasted; reasonable cancellation after repudiation and inability to find a suitable substitute may support causation and limit mitigation arguments.

## Conclusion

The court held that, where a contract is repudiated and the claimant reasonably abandons the project, reliance damages may include pre-contract expenditure that was foreseeably at risk of being wasted if the defendant failed to perform.


Anglia Television Ltd. v. Reed, [1972] 1 Q.B. 60 (C.A. 1971)