Farley v Skinner [2001] UKHL 49; [2002] 2 AC 732
Facts
Farley instructed a surveyor before buying a house near an airport. He specifically asked whether aircraft noise affected the property. The surveyor gave an inadequately investigated assurance, but after purchase Farley discovered substantial disturbance. He retained the house and sought damages for the loss of enjoyment and inconvenience caused by the noise. The lower courts disagreed about whether that non-financial loss was recoverable in a survey contract. The House of Lords considered both the importance of the specific instruction and the nature of the disturbance actually experienced.
Legal Issue
Could the purchaser recover for aircraft-noise discomfort when investigating that issue was an important, but not sole, object of the survey contract?
Held
The House of Lords restored the award for the disturbance suffered. Freedom from significant aircraft noise had been an important object of the particular survey instruction. It was unnecessary for peace of mind or enjoyment to be the sole object of the entire contract before the relevant exception to the usual restriction on distress damages could apply.
The speeches also considered discomfort caused by the sensory experience of noise, distinguishing it from mere disappointment that a contract was broken. The purchaser's retention of the house did not make that experienced loss unreal. The decision did not allow compensation for every emotional response to deficient professional services: the important contractual purpose and the actual physical inconvenience explained the result.
⭐ Legal Principle
Damages for non-financial loss may be available where pleasure, relaxation or peace of mind is a major or important contractual object, even if not the sole object. Physical inconvenience and associated distress may also be compensable. Mere disappointment at breach is generally insufficient.
Significance
Farley refines the exceptions to the ordinary restriction on damages for distress in contract. It is useful alongside Jarvis, where enjoyment was central to a holiday bargain, and Watts v Morrow on surveyor liability. The additional noise instruction matters because it identified a particular protected interest. In an exam, connect the claimed discomfort to the purpose and scope of the undertaking rather than assuming that buying a disappointing home gives an unrestricted claim for injured feelings.
Common exam questions about this case
Why did the particular aircraft-noise instruction matter?
It made peace and enjoyment an important part of the service the surveyor undertook to provide. The claim was therefore more specific than general disappointment with a house purchase. The court could connect the experienced disturbance with an identified contractual object even though the survey had other functions.
Must enjoyment be the sole purpose of the contract?
No. Farley recognises that a major or important object can suffice for the relevant exception. That does not make every incidental hope legally protected. An answer must show that the undertaking objectively included the interest for which non-financial compensation is claimed, as the specific noise instruction did here.
How is sensory discomfort different from disappointment about breach?
Aircraft noise was an experienced physical inconvenience, even though it also caused distress. Mere unhappiness that a professional failed to perform is different. The distinction prevents the exception being applied to every broken contract while recognising loss arising from actual interference with the claimant's use and enjoyment of the property.