Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Ex 850

Facts

  • Robinson contracted with Harman to receive a lease for a property at £110 per year.
  • Harman breached the contract, being unable to grant the lease as promised due to lacking legal right.
  • Robinson sought damages for the lost benefit of the bargain.
  • The court awarded Robinson £200, reflecting the value of the denied lease, not limited to expenses incurred in anticipation of the lease.

Issues

  1. Whether damages for breach of contract should place the claimant in the position they would have occupied had the contract been performed (expectation interest) or merely restore them to their pre-contractual state (reliance interest).
  2. What limitations apply to the recovery of expectation damages, including remoteness, mitigation, and non-pecuniary losses.
  3. Whether the measure and reasonableness of damages reflect an economic or moral theory of contract law.

Decision

  • The court held that damages for breach of contract are to be calculated to place the claimant as far as possible in the position they would have occupied if the contract had been performed.
  • Robinson was awarded a sum reflecting the benefit of the bargain, not just reliance losses, establishing the expectation damages rule.
  • The judgment distinguished expectation damages from reliance damages, highlighting the primacy of the expectation principle for contractual remedies.

Legal Principles

  • The expectation principle: damages should provide monetary compensation to put the innocent party in the position they would have been in had the contract been fulfilled.
  • Reliance damages are relevant only when expectation losses are difficult to quantify, but expectation damages remain the primary measure.
  • Limitations on expectation damages include the rules on remoteness (damages must be foreseeable), the duty to mitigate losses, the restriction of recovery for non-pecuniary losses, and the awarding of nominal damages where appropriate.
  • The extent and measure of damages are subject to reasonableness to avoid disproportionate awards and unjust enrichment.
  • The English law of contract emphasizes damages over specific performance, reflecting core theories such as ‘efficient breach’ and supporting economic efficiency alongside contractual sanctity.

Conclusion

The principle established in Robinson v Harman is that the injured party in a contract breach is entitled to expectation damages, subject to established legal limitations. This rule ensures that compensation reflects the benefit lost through non-performance and is influenced by considerations of reasonableness, remoteness, and mitigation, maintaining the balance between contractual fairness and economic efficiency in English contract law.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal