Friday, April 3, 2009
This week I'm teaching those two student rabble-rousers, Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal Co. and Groves v. John Wunder Co. The issue in both cases, of course, is whether the owner of property can get the cost of rectifying the defective performance if that cost exceeds the actual economic loss it suffered. The Australian High Court has recently dealt with the same issue, and it comes down on the John Wonder side of the coin.
In the case, Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v Bowen Investments Pty Ltd  HCA 8, the Court held that a building tenant had a right to have a building's lobby restored to its original condition at a cost of A$1.38 million, even though the actual loss in building value from the defective performance was only A$38,000. Nick Christopoulos and Jack Fan of Clayton Utz offer a summary of the case here. (Free registration required.)