Welcome

Farley v Skinner [2001] UKHL 49

ResourcesFarley v Skinner [2001] UKHL 49

Facts

  • Mr. Farley engaged Mr. Skinner, a surveyor, to inspect a property he was considering purchasing.
  • A specific instruction was given to investigate whether the property was affected by aircraft noise, as Mr. Farley wished to avoid residing near a flight path.
  • Mr. Skinner reported that the property was unlikely to be affected by such noise.
  • Relying on this report, Mr. Farley purchased the property but later discovered it was significantly impacted by aircraft noise.
  • Mr. Farley brought a breach of contract claim, alleging substandard performance and breach of the contractual obligation to exercise reasonable care over the investigation of aircraft noise.
  • He sought compensation not only for financial loss but also for diminished enjoyment and distress caused by the aircraft noise.

Issues

  1. Whether damages for non-pecuniary loss, specifically distress and physical inconvenience, can be awarded for breach of contract in this context.
  2. Whether a contract whose object is not solely pleasure may still support a claim for damages for distress or inconvenience if freedom from discomfort is a major or important object.
  3. Whether the experience of aircraft noise amounted to physical inconvenience warranting recovery of damages for distress.

Decision

  • The House of Lords unanimously found in favour of Mr. Farley, awarding £10,000 in damages for discomfort.
  • Lord Steyn clarified that the "very object" of a contract need not be narrowly interpreted; it suffices if freedom from discomfort is a major or important object of the contract.
  • The Court held that the provision of a quiet house was an important aspect of the contract, justifying a claim.
  • Lord Scott stated that the distinction between physical and non-physical inconvenience depends on the cause; discomfort arising from sensory experiences could be compensable.
  • The Court concluded that aircraft noise constituted physical inconvenience, supporting a damages award for distress.
  • The scope for recovery of non-pecuniary loss in contract law was broadened.
  • Damages in contract law aim to place the claimant in the position as if the contract had been properly performed (Robinson v Harman).
  • Damages for mental distress are not generally recoverable except where the contract’s object is pleasure, relaxation, or freedom from discomfort.
  • The interpretation of "very object" can include any major or important objective such as freedom from nuisance.
  • Physical inconvenience for the purpose of damages includes negative sensory experiences (such as noise).
  • Contracts can give rise to claims for non-pecuniary loss if the breach causes tangible harm, provided losses are not too remote.

Conclusion

Farley v Skinner [2001] UKHL 49 is a leading authority establishing that damages for distress or inconvenience may be awarded where freedom from such discomfort is a major purpose of the contract, and that physical inconvenience encompasses negative sensory experiences, expanding the scope for compensatory remedies in English contract law.

Assistant

Responses can be incorrect. Please double check.