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

Mr Jarvis booked a Swiss holiday based on a brochure's grand promises, which proved disastrously false. He sued for breach of contract. The court awarded him damages not just for financial loss, but also for his disappointment and distress, a landmark ruling.

Facts

The plaintiff, Mr Jarvis, a solicitor, booked a 15-day Christmas winter sports holiday in Mörlialp, Switzerland, with the defendants, Swans Tours Ltd. He was persuaded to book the holiday based on the defendants’ promotional brochure, which described the trip in effusive terms. The brochure advertised a ‘house-party’ atmosphere with a special resident host, welcome party, afternoon tea, and a yodeller evening. Mr Jarvis paid £63.45 for the holiday.

Upon arrival, the holiday failed to meet the brochure’s descriptions. For the first week, Mr Jarvis was the only guest, making the ‘house-party’ non-existent. In the second week, the group numbered only 13. The promised host was an English-speaking local who was only present in the evenings. The promised Tyrolean-style bar was a small, unstaffed room. The ‘yodeller evening’ consisted of a local man singing a few songs. The skiing facilities were also unsatisfactory. Mr Jarvis felt thoroughly disappointed and that the holiday was a ‘catastrophe’.

At first instance in the County Court, the judge found there had been a breach of contract. However, he limited the damages to £31.72, being half the cost of the holiday. The judge reasoned that Mr Jarvis had received some benefit from the holiday, and thus could not recover the full cost. He did not award any damages for disappointment or frustration. Mr Jarvis appealed the quantum of damages.

Issues

The principal legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether a plaintiff in a breach of contract case could recover damages for mental distress, disappointment, vexation, and loss of enjoyment. Specifically, the court considered whether damages for a ruined holiday should be limited to the financial value of the contract or if they could also compensate for the non-pecuniary loss of the promised experience.

Judgment

The Court of Appeal, comprising Lord Denning M.R., Edmund Davies L.J. and Stephenson L.J., unanimously allowed the appeal, increasing the damages awarded to Mr Jarvis. The court held that this was a special type of case where damages for mental distress were recoverable.

Lord Denning M.R.

Lord Denning distinguished this case from purely commercial contracts, establishing that where the very purpose of a contract is to provide enjoyment, relaxation, or peace of mind, damages for the loss of that benefit are recoverable. He reviewed previous authorities, noting that the general rule against recovering damages for injured feelings, established in cases like Addis v Gramophone Co. Ltd [1909] A.C. 488, did not apply in this context.

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.

Lord Denning concluded that the initial award was insufficient as it only considered the material value. He reasoned that Mr Jarvis was entitled to compensation for his lost enjoyment and the disappointment he suffered. Acknowledging the difficulty in quantifying such a loss, he proposed an award of £125.

Edmund Davies L.J.

Edmund Davies L.J. concurred, criticising the ‘pompous and extravagant’ claims in the brochure. He cited with approval the American authority, Corbin on Contracts, which states that damages can be awarded for ‘vexation and disappointment’ when a contract is made for the purpose of providing an ‘agreeable experience’. He agreed that the initial award was ‘derisory’ and supported the increased sum.

Stephenson L.J.

Stephenson L.J. also agreed, emphasising that the brochure’s promises were terms of the contract. He stated that the loss suffered by Mr Jarvis was a ‘loss of a holiday of the advertised scope, a loss of the enjoyment which he was promised’. He clarified that the damages were not for ‘mere vexation’ but for the substantial loss of the entire holiday experience, which was the central object of the contract.

Implications

Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd is a seminal case in English contract law. It carved out a significant exception to the general principle that damages for mental distress are not recoverable for breach of contract. The decision established that where the predominant object of a contract is to provide pleasure, relaxation, and peace of mind, the court can award damages for the disappointment, distress, and frustration resulting from a breach. This ‘Jarvis v Swans principle’ has since been applied to a variety of non-commercial contracts, including those for wedding photography, luxury surveys, and other services where enjoyment is a key component of the bargain. It represents a crucial development in consumer protection within the law of contract.

Verdict: Appeal allowed. The court set aside the judge’s award of £31.72 and substituted it with an award of £125 in damages for the plaintiff.

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