## Facts

- Radford owned a house and adjoining grounds and retained land after selling a plot to De Froberville.
- Radford planned a development in which the retained grounds would be used in connection with additional residential units.
- Radford sold a plot to De Froberville for £6,500 on terms that included an express covenant requiring her to build and maintain a boundary wall on her side of the boundary.
- De Froberville did not build the wall and later sold the plot to a third party without performing the covenant.
- The wall would cost about £3,400 to construct.
- The absence of the wall caused a negligible change in the market value of Radford’s retained land.
- Radford sued for damages measured by the cost to build the promised wall (cost of cure), rather than the minimal diminution in value.

## Issues

1. Whether damages for breach of a covenant to build a boundary wall may be measured by the reasonable cost of cure where diminution in market value is negligible.
2. Whether damages must be assessed strictly as of the date of breach, or at a later date reflecting when the claimant could reasonably obtain substitute performance as mitigation.

## Decision

- The Chancery Division (Oliver J) awarded Radford damages measured by the reasonable cost of constructing the wall (about £3,400).
- The court rejected limiting damages to the negligible diminution in value because that would not provide the bargained-for performance.
- The court treated the “date of breach” measure as a general working rule, not an invariable rule, and endorsed a timing approach tied to reasonable mitigation by substitute performance.

## Legal Principles

- Contract damages aim to place the claimant, so far as money can, in the position the claimant would have been in had the contract been performed.
- In building/works obligations, cost-of-cure (reinstatement) damages may be appropriate even if diminution in market value is small or non-existent.
- Cost-of-cure damages depend on the claimant showing a genuine intention to carry out the remedial work, so the award compensates a real loss rather than providing a windfall.
- The proper valuation date for damages is flexible; the court may select a date that reflects the claimant’s reasonable opportunity to mitigate by obtaining substitute performance, rather than rigidly using the date of breach.

## Conclusion

The court held that breach of a covenant to construct a boundary wall could be compensated by the reasonable cost of cure, notwithstanding negligible diminution in value, where the claimant genuinely intended to build the wall, and it applied a flexible approach to the assessment date to reflect reasonable mitigation by substitute performance.


Radford v. De Froberville, 1 All E.R. 33 (Ch. 1977)