As to the deposit and other purchase money paid.

(n) See above, pp. 130 - 134.

(o) Above, p. 961; Compton v. Bagley, 1892, 1 Ch. 313, 321; Day v. Singleton, 1899, 2 Ch. 320; Sug. V. & P. 362, 639.

(p) Farquhar v. Farley, 7 Taunt. 592. As we have seen, the stakeholder himself is not liable to pay interest on the deposit, though he is bound to return the sum deposited to the purchaser on the vendor's breach of the contract; above, p. 22.

(q) Consider Sherry v. Oke, 3 Dow. P. C. 349, 361; Cornwall v. Henson, 1900, 2 Ch. 298.

(r) Above, p. 961.

(s) Strutt v.Farlar; 16 M. & W. 249; Wall v. City of London Real Property Co., L. R. 9 Q. B. 249; above, p. 958.

Expenses recoverable by the purchaser as damages.

(t) Above, p. 164.

(u) Consider Gas Light and Coke Co. v. Towse, 35 Ch. D. 519, 543.

(x) Hanslip v. Padwick, 5 Ex. 615.

(y) Above, p. 961. n. (s); Richards v. Barton, 1 Esp. 268; Hanslip v. Padwick, Compton v. Bagley, ubi sup.

(z) Hodges v. Litchfield, 1 Bing. N. C. 492, 499; Sug. V. & P.

362

(a) Above, p. 510.

(b) Sug. V. & P. 362; 2 Dart, V. & P. 1076.

(c) Richardson v. Chosen, 10 Q. B. 756.

{d) Hodges v. Litchfield, 1 Bing. N. C. 492, 498; Sug. V. & P. 362.

(e) Jarmain v. Egelstone, 5 Car. & P. 172; Hodges v. Litchfield, 1

Bing. N. C. 492, 499; Sug. V. & P. 362.

(f) Sug. V. & P. 362.

(g) Above, p. 539; Sug. V. & P. 362.

(h) Flureau v. Thornhill, 2 W. Black. 1078.

(i) Hanslip v. Padwick, 5 Ex. 615.

(k) Sherry v. Oke, 3 Dow. P. C. 349, 361; Sug. V. & P. 237, 362, 640.

(/) Hodges v. Litchfield, 1 Bing. N. C. 492.

(m) Maiden v. Tyson, 11 Q. B. 292; see above, p. 69 and n. (e).

(n) Bratt v. Ellis, Sug. V. & P. 812; Worthington v. Warrington, 8 C. B. 134.'

A question arises, whether the purchaser is entitled to get hack his expenses in connection with the agreement in a case where he is allowed to recover substantial damages for the vendor's breach of contract. It is submitted that he is not. It is true that in the case of Engel v. Fitch (q), above stated, the purchaser was actually allowed to recover damages for loss of his bargain in addition to his expenses of investigating title, etc.: but this appears to have been owing to the form in which the question was presented to the Court. The vendor had paid into Court enough to satisfy the purchaser's expenses; and at the trial a verdict was taken by consent for the plaintiff, who was the purchaser, for the amount of the profit on his resale beyond the money paid into Court, with leave to move to enter the verdict for the defendant. A rule nisi was accordingly obtained and was discharged by the Court of Queen's Bench, whose decision was affirmed in the Exchequer Chamber. The result of this was that the purchaser obtained as damages not only the whole amount of the profit on the resale, but his expenses of the original sale as well. These he would have had to pay out of his own pocket if the original sale had been duly completed. The result of the verdict, therefore, was to place him in a better position by reason of the breach of contract than he would have occupied if there had been no breach. Such a result, it is submitted, cannot possibly be supported. The true principle appears to have been applied in the case of Day v. Singleton (s). In that case the purchaser claiming damages as plaintiff was allowed by Romer, J., to recover his deposit, with interest, and his costs of investigating the title. On appeal this judgment was reversed, except as regards the deposit; it was declared that the plaintiff was entitled to substantial damages for the vendor's breach of duty, and an inquiry was ordered to ascertain the amount of such damages according to the general principle of the Common Law. It seems, therefore, to have been recognised that, as the purchaser was to have substantial compensation for the loss of his bargain, he was not entitled, in addition, to recover expenses, which he would have had to bear himself if the contract had been completed (t). Where land has been sold for a particular purpose, as for carrying on a trade or business there (u), and the vendor commits such a breach of contract as entitles the purchaser to damages for loss of his bargain, the purchaser's loss of profit from his inability to use the premises in the manner contemplated by the contract may be taken into consideration in assessing the damages recoverable from the vendor (x).

Whether the purchaser can recover his expenses where he is allowed substantial damages for loss of his bargain.

(o) See above, pp. 457, 458.

(p) Pounsett v. Fuller, 17 C. B. 6G0; Sikes v. Wild, 1 B. & S. 587, 590, 4 B. & S. 421, 424.

(q) L. R. 4 Q. B. 659; above, p. 963. And in Godwin v. Francis, L. R. 5 C. P. 295, it was admitted, apparently on the authority of Engel v. Fitch, that a purchaser entitled to damages for loss of his bargain should recover his expenses of investigating title as well. But it appears to have been overlooked that this would place him in a better position than if the contract had been carried out.

Damages for loss of profit, where land sold for a particular purpose.

(s) 1899, 2 Ch. 320; stated above, p. 962. The head-note states that the purchaser was held to be entitled to recover damages for loss of his bargain, besides his expenses; but it does not correctly represent the effect of the judgment.

(t) The right principle as to the damages recoverable appears to have been applied in Hopkins v. Grazebrook, 6 B. & C. 31, and Robinson v. Harman, 1 Ex. 850; though the decision in each of those cases, that substantial damages were in the circumstances recoverable at all, has been overruled; above, p. 962, n. (z).

(u) Above, pp. 507, 508.

If the purchaser affirm the contract and claim damages for the vendor's breach, he has no lien on the land sold for the amount of damages recoverable, notwithstanding that this includes compensation for instalments of the purchase money actually paid (y).