Legal Case Summary
Ruxley Electronics & Constructions Ltd v Forsyth [1996] AC 344
Pool not built to specified depth; whether cost of re-instatement recoverable
Facts
Ruxley agreed to build a swimming pool at Forsyth’s home. The contract specified the depth of the pool was to be seven feet and six inches. Ruxley completed the pool to a depth of six feet and nine inches. Forsyth brought an action for breach of contract, claiming the cost of rebuilding the pool to the specified depth.
Issues
Ruxley argued the pool was still safe for diving despite the breach and Forsyth had not, therefore, suffered any damage in terms of a loss to the value of his home. Given the cost of re-building the pool was £21,560, it would be wholly unreasonable and disproportionate to the loss Forsyth had suffered in not having the pool at his desired depth. He further contended that Forsyth had no actual intention of having the re-building work conducted and, therefore, he had not suffered any loss. Forsyth argued that Ruxley had failed to perform his specific obligations under the contract and he should, therefore, be entitled to damages which would place him in the position he would have been in had the obligations been appropriately performed. He asserted it was irrelevant whether he chose to use the damages for the re-building work.
Decision/Outcome
Forsyth could not recover the cost of re-building because this would be totally out of proportion to the loss he had suffered. He could recover £2,500 for loss of amenity but the law must cater for cases where full performance of the promise would vastly exceed the loss which had truly been suffered. The pool was, in fact, worth no less because of the breach but to award nothing would render the contractual promise illusory, and so a nominal award was appropriate.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Ruxley Electronics & Construction Ltd v Forsyth [1996] AC 344 as reported. The legal principles established by the House of Lords — concerning the recoverability of reinstatement costs in contract damages, proportionality, and loss of amenity — remain good law. The case continues to be regularly cited in English contract law, including in subsequent Supreme Court and Court of Appeal decisions on damages, notably Marex Financial Ltd v Sevilleja and discussions in One Step Support Ltd v Morris-Garner [2018] UKSC 20, where the Supreme Court reaffirmed the role of orthodox compensatory principles and distinguished the loss of amenity approach. There have been no statutory changes affecting the principles discussed. Readers should note that the £2,500 loss of amenity award, while accurate as stated, was described by the House of Lords as reflecting a modest but real loss rather than a purely nominal award, so the article’s final sentence characterising it as ‘nominal’ is a slight oversimplification, though not one that materially distorts the legal principle. Overall, the summary remains a reliable account of this leading authority.
