Case Number

CA 1846/92

Date Decided

8-19-1993

Decision Type

Appellate

Document Type

Full Opinion

Abstract

Facts: The appellants bought an apartment from the respondent. The apartment suffered from water penetration and the respondent failed to make effective repairs. After several years the appellants sued the respondent in the District Court for rescission of the contract, restitution of the purchase price and damages. The District Court found that the appellants were entitled to rescind the contract.

The main issue in the appeal was the ruling of the District Court that the appellants must pay the respondent a sum of $16,000 for use of the apartment during the years that they lived in it. The appellants argued that the deduction of this sum undermined the contractual principle that damages should put the injured party in the position he would be in, had the contract been upheld. The respondent argued that the laws of restitution require the appellants to pay for the benefit they had from the apartment during the years that they lived in it.

Held: The appellants were indeed liable under the laws of restitution to pay for the use of the apartment. But the appellants, in claiming damages, were entitled to be put in the position they would be in, had the contract been upheld. They were therefore entitled to damages for their obligation under the laws of restitution to pay for the use of the apartment, in the sum of $16,000. Consequently, the liability to pay the sum of $16,000 for use of the apartment was cancelled.

Appeal allowed. Counter-appeal denied.

Keywords

Contracts -- Remedies

Download

Share

COinS