Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd

Damages for breach of contract are not confined to financial loss or physical inconvenience where the contract’s object is to provide enjoyment, entertainment or pleasure. A party who fails to provide a holiday of the promised quality may be liable for the customer’s disappointment, distress, upset and frustration, as well as the lost amenities of the holiday.

The award should compensate the loss of enjoyment and benefit which the contracting party reasonably contemplated. It is not limited by the holiday price or by a mechanical comparison between the services promised and those supplied.

Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd concerned a two-week winter holiday booked in reliance on a travel brochure. The brochure promised a house-party holiday, ski facilities and specified entertainment. Much of that experience was not provided, particularly during the second week.

His Honour Judge Corley found contractual breaches but awarded £31.72, broadly half the holiday price. The claimant appealed, contending that the assessment failed to reflect the lost enjoyment, disappointment and frustration caused by the deficient holiday.

The central issue was the proper measure of contractual damages for failure to provide a holiday contracted for as an enjoyable experience.

1. Appeal allowed unanimously. Lord Denning MR, Edmund Davies LJ and Stephenson LJ held that the claimant should receive £125 general damages, rather than £31.72.

2. The brochure’s statements were capable of being contractual warranties. Lord Denning MR considered it unnecessary to decide whether they were warranties or misrepresentations, because either route could permit damages. The appeal concerned only their assessment.

3. The court held that a holiday contract is not confined to travel, accommodation and meals. It may undertake to provide an enjoyable holiday of a stated quality. Where that undertaking is breached, damages may reflect the disappointment, distress, frustration and loss of enjoyment caused by the breach.

4. Lord Denning MR considered the former restriction on contractual recovery for mental distress to be out of date in a proper case. Edmund Davies LJ stressed that the travel agents had undertaken to provide a holiday with particular overall qualities, not merely transport and hotel services. Stephenson LJ agreed that mental inconvenience, including frustration, annoyance and disappointment, was within the parties’ contemplation for this type of contract.

5. The trial judge had therefore adopted an unduly narrow measure by halving the price paid. The proper assessment was a broad award compensating the lost entertainment and enjoyment promised but not received. Stephenson LJ additionally rejected the claimant’s claim for a fortnight’s salary.

The claimant was awarded £125 damages, with costs in the Court of Appeal and County Court on scale 3, subject to the general discretion.

• Court of Appeal — In Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd, [1973] QB 233, the court allowed the claimant’s appeal and substituted an award of £125 damages.

• County Court — His Honour Judge Corley awarded £31.72, broadly one half of the holiday price. The Court of Appeal held that this assessment failed adequately to compensate the claimant’s loss of enjoyment and disappointment.