Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only.

Doyle v Olby - 1969

288 words (1 pages) Case Summary

4th Jan 2021 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): Australian Law

Doyle v Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd [1969] 2 QB 158

Contract law – Misrepresentation – Damages – Fraud – Business Purchase – Loss – Breach of Contract – Deceit – Remoteness of Damage

Facts

The complainant, Mr Doyle, decided to purchase an Ironmonger’s business from the defendants, Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd. He purchased the business for £4,500 and the stock at £5,000. It had been detailed that the business would be ‘all over the counter’, but it turned out that half of business was through a travelling salesman. The complainant made heavy losses and although he had managed to sell the business to a third party for £3,700, he had suffered debts as a consequence.

Issues

The court had awarded Mr Doyle £1,500 for the deceit of the business sale. This figure was based on the cost of employing a part time traveller. The complainant appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal.

Decision/Outcome

The Court of Appeal held that the damages the complainant should receive must be increased to £5,500. Mr Doyle should be entitled to recover his losses and all damages that directly result from the deceit of buying the business. The award he had received was based on damages for breach of contract, which were different to fraudulent misrepresentation. The damages should put the complainant into the position he would have been in if there had been no false representation by the defendant in the course of the sale. The defendant cannot say they could not have reasonable foreseen this loss. Thus, this case established that damages for breach of contract are different from those of fraud and conspiracy.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

Related Content

Jurisdictions / Tags

Content relating to: "Australian Law"

This selection of academic papers covers the legal system of Australia and contains, essays, dissertations and case summaries which may be of interest to Australian law students or those studying Australian laws from outside Australia.

Related Articles