East v Maurer
| East v Maurer[1991] EWCA Civ 6 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Court of Appeal of England and Wales |
| Full case name | Terence Eardley East & Janet Daisy Maud East v Roger Joseph Maurer & Roger de Paris & Company Ltd |
| Decided | 28 September 1990 |
| Citation(s) | [1990] EWCA Civ 6, [1991] 2 All ER 733, [1991] 1 WLR 461 |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Lord Justice Mustill, Lord Justice Butler-Sloss, Lord Justice Beldam |
| Keywords | |
| Misrepresentation | |
East v Maurer [1990] EWCA Civ 6[1] is an English contract law case concerning misrepresentation.
Facts
Maurer fraudulently told East he would not run a competing hair salon, so East bought the salon from Maurer. Maurer started to run a competing hair salon. East lost business. East then sued Maurer for deceit.
Judgment
The Court of Appeal held that East could recover the price paid minus selling price, plus trading losses, plus expenses of buying and selling and carrying out improvements, plus £10,000 in foregone profits. It noted that foregone profits were recoverable in tort where the claimant might be expected to make them in a similar hairdressing business. To recover profits that would have been particular to this business, breach of a contractual warranty needed to be shown.
See also
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
- English contract law
- Misrepresentation in English law
- Smith New Court Ltd v Scrimgeour Vickers (Asset Management) Ltd [1997] AC 254, Lord Steyn said East ‘shows that an award based on the hypothetical profitable business in which the plaintiff would have engaged but for deceit is permissible: it is classic consequential loss.’
Notes
- ↑ "East v Maurer [1991] EWCA Civ 6 (28 Sept 1990)". Bailii.org. Retrieved 2013-02-03.