Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd [1972] EWCA Civ 8 (16 October 1972)

Mr Jarvis, a solicitor, booked a Swiss skiing holiday based on a brochure promising house parties, entertainment, and ski facilities. The holiday fell far short of these promises. The Court of Appeal held that damages for breach of a holiday contract can include compensation for disappointment, distress and loss of enjoyment, not just financial loss.

Facts

Mr Jarvis, a solicitor employed by a local authority, booked a 15-day Christmas skiing holiday to Switzerland with Swans Tours Ltd for £63.90, relying on their brochure. The brochure promised a ‘House Party Centre’ with a resident host, various entertainments including a welcome party, yodler evening, fondue party, and an Alphutte Bar open several evenings a week. It also promised ski equipment hire and described the hotel owner as speaking English.

The holiday fell significantly short of these promises. During the first week, only 13 guests attended instead of the expected 30. In the second week, Mr Jarvis was the sole guest with no house party at all. The hotel owner could not speak English. The ski facilities were inadequate, with only mini-skis available initially. The promised Swiss cakes were replaced by potato crisps and dry nutcakes. The yodler evening consisted of one local man singing briefly in working clothes. The Alphutte Bar opened only one evening.

Issues

The central issue was the correct measure of damages for breach of a holiday contract. Specifically, whether damages could be awarded for mental distress, disappointment, and loss of enjoyment resulting from the breach, rather than being limited to the difference in monetary value between what was paid for and what was received.

Judgment

Lord Denning MR

Lord Denning held that the statements in the brochure constituted representations or warranties, and their breach entitled Mr Jarvis to damages. He rejected the trial judge’s approach of simply halving the holiday cost to reflect the diminished value received.

Lord Denning stated that the older limitations on damages for mental distress were out of date:

I think that those limitations are out of date. In a proper case damages for mental distress can be recovered in contract, just as damages for shock can be recovered in tort. One such case is a contract for a holiday, or any other contract to provide entertainment and enjoyment. If the contracting party breaks his contract, damages can be given for the disappointment, the distress, the upset and frustration caused by the breach.

He emphasised that assessment of such damages, while difficult, was no more difficult than assessing loss of amenities in personal injury cases:

I know that it is difficult to assess in terms of money, but it is no more difficult than the assessment which the courts have to make every day in personal injury cases for loss of amenities.

Lord Justice Edmund Davies

Edmund Davies LJ agreed, noting that the travel agents had contracted to provide not merely transport and accommodation but a holiday of a certain quality with ‘a great time’ as the expected outcome. He held:

When a man has paid for and properly expects an invigorating and amusing holiday and, through no fault of his, returns home dejected because his expectations have been largely unfulfilled, in my judgment it would be quite wrong to say that his disappointment must find no reflection in the damages to be awarded.

Lord Justice Stephenson

Stephenson LJ concurred, holding that the defendants ought to have contemplated that if they broke their contract, they would reduce the plaintiff’s enjoyment of the holiday and the benefit he would derive from it.

Implications

This case established the important principle that damages for breach of contract can include compensation for mental distress, disappointment, and loss of enjoyment where the contract’s purpose is to provide pleasure, relaxation, or entertainment. The decision departed from the stricter Victorian approach that limited recovery to physical inconvenience or quantifiable financial loss.

The case has become a leading authority on damages for non-pecuniary loss in contract law, particularly applicable to holiday contracts, entertainment contracts, and similar agreements where enjoyment is a central purpose. It recognised that the value of such contracts cannot be measured solely by their monetary cost but must account for the intangible benefits promised.

Verdict: Appeal allowed. Damages increased from £31.72 to £125, with costs in the Court of Appeal and County Court awarded to the plaintiff.

Source: Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd [1972] EWCA Civ 8 (16 October 1972)