Contract; remedies for breach; objective of damages.
Facts: Radford owned two adjacent blocks of land. He sold one to de Froberville on the condition that she build an expensive brick wall on the boundary. She failed to build the wall, and resold her property to a third party. Radford sued de Froberville for damages for breach of contract. He claimed the cost of actually constructing the promised brick wall. De Froberville argued that Radford was only entitled to be compensated for the reduction in the value of Radford's property as a result of her failure to build the wall. This was less than the cost of actually building the wall.
Issue: What was the appropriate measure of damages?
Decision: Radford was entitled to claim damages equal to the cost of actually constructing the wall.
Reason: The objective of an award of damages is to put the non-defaulting party in the position he would have occupied had the breach of contract not occurred. If de Froberville had performed the contract, the wall would have been built, and it was the cost of this that Radford was entitled to claim.