Scott v Ennis-Oakes

The case of Scott v Ennis-Oakes involved a dispute between the vendor and purchasers over the sale of a lot in a proposed subdivision. The purchasers claimed for loss of bargain damages after the vendor rescinded the contract for sale of land. The vendor had entered into a contract with the purchasers, which included a term that a plan of subdivision would be lodged for registration as soon as practicable and with due expedition. The contract provided either party with the right to rescind if the plan was not registered within 12 months. The purchasers initiated proceedings for specific performance of the contract when the vendor purported to rescind it due to the plan of subdivision not being registered within the stipulated time. Subsequently, the vendor rescinded the contract under a different contractual provision, which the purchasers accepted as valid. The purchasers then abandoned their claim for specific performance and sought loss of bargain damages instead.

The legal issues before the court were whether loss of bargain damages were recoverable and if such damages had accrued by the time of the rescission. The court had to determine if the loss of bargain damages were available given that the contract was not terminated due to the wrongful conduct of the vendor. The purchasers argued that they were entitled to loss of bargain damages as they had incurred expenses and lost a valuable opportunity to purchase the property. The vendor contended that loss of bargain damages were not recoverable because the contract was not terminated for their wrongful conduct and no claim for such damages had accrued by the time of the rescission.

The court held that loss of bargain damages were not recoverable in this case. The contract was rescinded by the vendor pursuant to a different contractual provision, not due to any wrongful conduct. Additionally, the court found that no claim for loss of bargain damages had accrued by the time the rescission occurred. Therefore, the purchasers were not entitled to recover such damages. The court's decision was based on the specific terms of the contract and the circumstances of the rescission. The vendors were not liable for loss of bargain damages as no such claim had accrued by the time the contract was validly rescinded.