jarvis v swan tours ltd 1973 appeal

• UK & Ireland

How is this helpful for me?

• Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work.
• Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization.
• Creating a unique profile web page containing interviews, posts, articles, as well as the cases you have appeared in, greatly enhances your digital presence on search engines such Google and Bing, resulting in increased client interest.
• The cases linked on your profile facilitate Casemine's artificial intelligence engine in recommending you to potential clients who might be interested in availing your services for similar matters.

  Know more  

• ON OFF Text Highlighter

Report a problem

MR. S.N. PARRISH, instructed by Messrs. Maples Teesdale & Co., appeared for the Appellant (Plaintiff).

MR. P. THOMPSON, instructed by Messrs. Paisner & Co., appeared for the Respondents (Defendants).

LORD JUSTICE STEPHENSON

LORD DENNING

LORD JUSTICE EDMUND

LORD JUSTICE

• Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Oct 16, 1972
• Full Judgment
• Subsequent References
• CaseIQ (AI Recommendations)

Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd

The plaintiff, Mr. Jarvis, booked a winter sports holiday through the defendants, a group of travel agents. The brochure described the holiday destination, Morlialp, as a wonderful resort with various amenities, including an Alphutte Bar open several evenings a week and a charming owner who spoke English. However, upon arrival, Mr. Jarvis found that there was no house-party in the second week and he did not have the Swiss cakes he was hoping for. As a result, he sued the travel agents for damages.

• Did the breaches of contract by the travel agents give Mr. Jarvis a right to damages?
• What is the proper method of assessing damages for a holiday that did not meet the promised quality?

The court held that the breaches of contract did entitle Mr. Jarvis to damages. The court rejected the travel agents' argument that damages should be limited to the cost of the holiday, finding that inconvenience and disappointment could also be considered in the assessment of damages. The court awarded Mr. Jarvis a sum of 125 as general damages for all the breaches of contract.

The court found that the travel agents had breached their contract by failing to provide the holiday of the contracted quality. The court held that the overall quality of the holiday promised in the brochure should be contrasted with that which was actually provided. The court rejected the travel agents' argument that damages should be limited to the cost of the holiday, finding that even inconvenience that is not strictly physical may be a proper element in the assessment of damages. The court awarded Mr. Jarvis a sum of 125 as general damages for all the breaches of contract, taking into account the various shortcomings of the holiday.

Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Justice Licence v1.0 .

Edit Citation

• Distinguished
• Referencing
• Uncategorized

Get 1 point on providing a valid sentiment to this Citation.

Get 2 points on providing a valid reason for the above change.

Add Equivalent Citation

Get 1 point on adding a valid citation to this judgment.

Select Preference

Share the Judgment

Are you sure?

By clicking on this tab, you are expressly stating that you were one of the attorneys appearing in this matter. Before confirming, please ensure that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment. In case of any confusion, feel free to reach out to us. Leave your message here.

Click here to remove this judgment from your profile.

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

Careerinlaw.net | UK

Case Summary: Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd [1973] QB 233

Home » News » Case Summary: Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd [1973] QB 233

Legal Principles and Key Points:

• In the case of Jarvis v Swan Tours Ltd [1973] QB 233, it was held that where the object of the contract is enjoyment, damages for the disappointment of a party at the loss of promised facilities for enjoyment can be recoverable. This will count as mental distress.

Facts of Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd [1973] QB 233

• C (Jarvis) booked a Christmas holiday with the Ds, Swans Tours
• He had booked it on the reliance of the Ds’ brochure naming a ‘house party centre’
• For the booking, C paid £63.45
• The holiday was a disappointment for the C who then claimed damages which included damages for the inconvenience and loss of benefit
• The County Court awarded the C half of what he claimed, finding that the second week was inferior to the first
• C appealed against the amount of damages, believing the award to be inadequate

Issues in Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd [1973] QB 233

• Should one be awarded damages for disappointment of enjoyment he was promised?

Held by the Court of Appeal

Lord denning m.r..

• “It has often been said that on a breach of contract damages cannot be given for mental distress.”
• “The courts in those days only allowed the plaintiff to recover damages if he suffered physical inconvenience, such as having to walk five miles home, as in Hobbs’ case; or to live in an over-crowded house … Bullock [1950] ”
• “If the contracting party breaks his contract, damages can be given for the disappointment, the distress, the upset and frustration caused by the breach. 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.”
• Applying this to Mr Jarvis’ case, Lord Denning believed the C should be compensated for the holiday he was looking forward to since booking in advance
• “a man who has taken a ticket for Glyndbourne. It is the only night on which he can get there. He hires a car to take him. The car does not turn up. His damages are not limited to the mere cost of the ticket. He is entitled to general damages for the disappointment he has suffered and the loss of the entertainment which he should have had.”
• As was the situation in the present case where, albeit fed and sheltered, the C did not receive what he had went on the holiday for; thus “is entitled to damages for the lack of those facilities, and for his loss of enjoyment.”

Exclusive Industry Scoop

• Name * First Last
• Degree Type * Your Current Level of Study LLB LPC PGDL BPTC SQE Prep LLM
• Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Jarvis v Swan Tours Ltd [1973] QB 233

• by Lawprof Team

Learn faster and better with our first-class Oxford contract notes

Where the object of the contract is to provide pleasure and that is prevented by breach of contract, damages can be awarded for mental distress.

• C booked a Christmas skiing holiday with Ds for £63.45.
• The skiing facilities and accommodation did not live up to what was advertised in the brochure.
• C claimed for breach and was awarded half of what he paid by the judge.

Held (Court of Appeal)

The sum of damages should be increased to cover C’s mental distress.

Lord Denning MR

• In the past the courts refused to award damages in contract for mental distress except when it resulted from physical inconvenience. I think those limitations are out of date.
• In a proper case damages should be awarded for mental distress, one such case is a contract for a holiday, or any other contract to provide entertainment and enjoyment.

Get tutored by top law graduates from Oxbridge. Get a lawprof. Click to sign up.

• Apps & Integrations

Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd

• Practice and Procedure
• Court Structure
• Employment and Labour Law
• Employment Relationship
• Human Rights
• Right to a Fair Trial
• Damages and Restitution

[1972] EWCA Civ J1018-1

The Master of The Rolls (Lord Denning)

Lord Justice Edmund Davies

Lord Justice Stephenson

In The Supreme Court of Judicature

Court of Appeal

On Appeal from the Judgment of His Honour Judge Corley

2nd March, 1972.

MR. S. N. PARRISH, instructed by Messrs. Maples Teesdale & Co., appeared for the Appellant (Plaintiff).

MR. P. THOMPSON, instructed by Messrs. Paisner & Co., appeared for the Respondents (Defendants).

Mr. Jarvis is a solicitor, employed by a local authority at Barking. In 1969 he was minded to go for Christmas to Switzerland, He was looking forward to a sking holiday. It is his one fortnight's holiday in the year. He prefers it in the winter rather than in the summer.

Mr. Jarvis read a brochure issued by Swan Tours Limited. He was much attracted by the description of Morlialp, Giswil, Central Switzerland. I will not read the whole of it, but just pick out some of the principal attractions: "House Party Centre with special resident host …. Morlialp is a most wonderful little resort on a sunny, plateau … Up there you will find yourself in the midst of beautiful alpine scenery, which in winter becomes a wonderland of sun, snow and ice, with a wide variety of fine ski-runs, a skating rink and exhilarating toboggan run … Why did we choose the Hotel Krone … mainly and most of all because of the. 'Gemutlichkeit' and friendly welcome you will receive from Herr and Frau Weibel … The Hotel Krone has its own Aiphutte Bar which will be open several evenings a week … No doubt you will be in for a great time, when you book this house-party holiday… Mr. Weibel, the charming owner, speaks English" .

On the same page, in a special yellow box, it was said: " Swans Houseparty in Morlialp. All these Houseparty arrangements are included in the price of your holiday. Welcome party on arrival. Afternoon tea and cake for seven days. Swiss dinner by candlelight. Fondue party. Yodler evening. Chali farewell party in the 'Alaphutte Bar'. Service of representative" .

Alongside on the same page there was a special note about ski-packs. Hire of Skis, Stocks and Boots – 12 days - £11.10.

In August, 1969, on the faithof that, brochure, Mr. Jarvis booked a 15-day holiday, with ski-pack. The total charge was £63.90, including Christmas supplement. He was to fly from Gatwick to Zurich on 20th December, 1969, and return on 3rd January, 1970.

The plaintiff went on the holiday, but he was very disappointed. He was a man of about 35 and he expected to be one of a house-party of some 30 or so people. Instead, he found there were only 13 during the first week. In the second week there was no house-party at all He was the only person there. Mr. Weibel could not speak English. So there was Mr. Jarvis,in the second week, in this hotel with no house-party at all, and no one could speak English, except himself. He was very disappointed, too, with the sking. It was some distance away at Giswil. There, were no ordinary length skis. There were only mini-skis, about 3 ft. long. So he did not get his sking as he wanted to. In the second week he did get some longer skis for a couple of days, but then, because of the boots, his feet got rubbed and he could not continue even with the long skis. So his sking holiday, from his point of view, was pretty well ruined.

There were many other matters, too. They appear trivial y when they are set down in writing, but I have no doubt they loomed large in Mr. Jarvis's mind, when coupled with the other disappointments. He did not have the nice Swiss cakes which lie he was hoping for. The only cakes for tea were potato crisps and little dry nutcakes. The Yodler evening consisted of one man r. from the locality who came in his working clothes for a little while, and sang four or five songs very quickly. The Alphutte Bar was an unoccupied annexe which was only open one evening. There was a representative, Mrs. Storr, there during the first week, but she was not there during the second week.

The matter was summed up by the learned judge: "During the first week he got a holiday in Switzerland which was to some extent inferior …. and, as to the second week, he got a holiday which was very largely inferior" to what he was led to expect.

What is the legal position? I think that the statements in the brochure were representations or warranties. The breaches of them give Mr. Jarvis a right to damages. It is not necessary to decide whether they were representations or warranties: because since the Misrepresentation Act, 1967 , there is a remedy in damages for misrepresentation as well as for breach of warranty.

The onequestion in the case is: What is the amount of damages? The judge seems to have taken the difference in value between what he paid for and what he got. He said: "I intend to give the difference between the two values and no other damages under any other head" . He thought that Mr. Jarvis had got half of what he paid for. So the judge gave him half the amount which he had paid, namely, £31.72. Mr. Jarvis appeals to this court. He says that the damages ought tohave been much more.

There is one point I must mention first. Counsel together made a very good note of the Judge's judgment. They agreed it. It is very clear and intelligible. It shows plainly enough the ground of the judge's decision: but, by an oversight, it was not submitted to the judge, as it should have been: see Bruen v. Bruce (1959) 2 All England Reports, page 375 . In some circumstances we should send it back to the judge for his comments. But I do not think we need do sohere. The judge received the notice of appeal and made notes for our consideration. I do not think he would have wished to add to them. We will, therefore, decide the case on the material before us.

What is the right way of assessing damages? It has often been said that on a breach of contract damages cannot be given for mental distress. Thus in Hamblin v. G. V. R. 1 H. & N. at page 441 , Chief Baron Pollock said that damages cannot be given "for the disappointment of mind occurring by the breach of a contract" . And in Hobbs v. London & South Western Railway (1875) Law Reports 10 Queen's Bench, at page 122 , Mr. Justice Mellor said that "for the mere inconvenience, such asannoyance and loss of temper, or vexation, or for being disappointed in a particular thing which you have set your mind upon, without real physical inconvenience resulting, you cannot recover damages" . The courts in those days only allowed the plaintiff to recover damages if he suffered physical inconvenience, such as, having to walk five miles home, as in Hobbs' case; or to live in an over-crowded house, Bailey v. Bullock (1950) 2 All England Reports, page 1167 .

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 shod: 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. 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. Take the present case. Mr. Jarvis has only a fortnight's holiday in the year.He books it far ahead, and looks forward to it all that time. He ought to be compensated for the loss of it.

A good illustration was given by Lord Justice Edmund Davies in the course of the argument. He put the case of a man who has taken a ticket for Glyndbourne. It is the only night on which he can get there, He hires a car to cake him. The car does not turn up. His damages are not limited to the mere cost of the ticket. He is entitled to general damages for the ...

To continue reading

Subscribers can access the reported version of this case.

You can sign up for a trial and make the most of our service including these benefits.

Why Sign-up to vLex?

Over 100 countries.

Search over 120 million documents from over 100 countries including primary and secondary collections of legislation, case law, regulations, practical law, news, forms and contracts, books, journals, and more.

Thousands of Data Sources

Updated daily, vLex brings together legal information from over 750 publishing partners, providing access to over 2,500 legal and news sources from the world’s leading publishers.

Find What You Need, Quickly

Advanced A.I. technology developed exclusively by vLex editorially enriches legal information to make it accessible, with instant translation into 14 languages for enhanced discoverability and comparative research.

Over 2 million registered users

Founded over 20 years ago, vLex provides a first-class and comprehensive service for lawyers, law firms, government departments, and law schools around the world.

Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document.

Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case.

Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments.

Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case.

Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. An alternative to lists of cases, the Precedent Map makes it easier to establish which ones may be of most relevance to your research and prioritise further reading. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received.

Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found.

• High Court (Malaysia)
• 1 January 2001
• United Kingdom
• County Court
• Invalid date
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
• 13 November 1975
• Wildy Simmonds & Hill Saggerson on Travel Law and Litigation - 7th Edition Contents
• 30 August 2022
• Irwin Books Remedies: The Law of Damages. Third Edition Compensatory Damages
• 21 June 2014
• Irwin Books The Law of Contracts. Third Edition Remedies
• 4 August 2020

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy . ACCEPT

• Contract Law Cases
• Damages Cases

Jarvis v Swan’s Tours [1973] QB 233

Judgement for the case jarvis v swan’s tours, table of contents.

Plaintiff was advertised a holiday by a brochure and the service he received was much worse than that which he was induced to believe and CA accepted that he could claim damages.

The question was what damages he could claim: He was able to recover damages for mental distress (he had only 2 weeks holiday per year and they were ruined) since this was the type of contract where “inconvenience” and “lack of enjoyment” are relevant to the service provided and therefore an award greater than the overall cost of the holiday was made. 

For Further Study on Jarvis v Swan’s Tours

Need instant answers our ai exam tutor is here to help..

Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️

Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.

Similar Cases

• Farley v Skinner
• Jackson v Horizon Holidays
• Re The Golden Victory
• Anglia TV v Reed
• Gogay v Hertfordshire CC

Related Product Samples

These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.

• Oxbridge Notes' prizewinning note marketplace has been serving students since 2010 with premium study materials
• Reap the benefits of joined-up learning and earn higher grades, just like our 75,000+ happy customers.

Contract law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...

About Oxbridge

Since 2010, Oxbridge Notes has been a trusted education marketplace, supplying high-quality materials from top achievers at universities like Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, and Yale.

We offer free case summaries, sample notes, and award-winning content, all curated and approved by our editorial team. Our reputation for excellence has led to features in The Guardian, Wikipedia, and the National Council for Law Reporting (Kenya Law).

Every year, millions of students utilize our free and premium notes to aid their studies.

Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd

[1973] 1 All ER 71

Court of Appeal

The facts are stated in the judgement of Lord Denning MR.

Lord Denning MR

The plaintiff, Mr Jarvis, is a solicitor employed by a local authority at Barking. In 1969 he was minded to go for Christmas to Switzerland. He was looking forward to a skiing holiday. It is his one fortnight's holiday in the year. He prefers it in the winter rather than in the summer.

Mr Jarvis read a brochure issued by Swans Tours Ltd. He was much attracted by the description of Morlialp, Giswil, Central Switzerland. I will not read the whole of it, but just pick out some of the principal attractions:

'House Party Centre with special resident host... Morlialp is a most wonderful little resort on a sunny plateau... Up there you will find yourself in the midst of beautiful alpine scenery, which in winter becomes a wonderland of sun, snow and ice, with a wide variety of fine ski-runs, a skating-rink and an exhilaration toboggan run... Why did we choose the Hotel Krone... mainly and most of all, because of the 'Gemutlichkeit ' and friendly welcome you will receive from Herr and Frau Weibel... The Hotel Krone has its own Alphutte Bar which will be open several evenings a week... No doubt you will be in for a great time, when you book this houseparty holiday... Mr Weibel, the charming owner, speaks English. '

On the same page, in a special yellow box, it was said:

'Swans Houseparty In Morlialp. All these Houseparty arrangements are included in the price of your holiday. Welcome party on arrival. Afternoon tea and cake for 7 days. Swiss Dinner by candlelight. Fondue-party. Yodler evening. Chali farewell party in the 'Alphutte Bar'. Service of representative. '

Alongside on the same page there was a special note about ski-packs: 'Hire of Skis, Sticks and Boots... 12 days £11.10. '

In August 1969, on the faith of that brochure, Mr Jarvis booked a 15 day holiday, with ski-pack. The total charge was £63.45, including Christmas supplement. He was to fly from Gatwick to Zurich on 20th December 1969 and return on 3rd January 1970.

The plaintiff went on the holiday, but he was very disappointed. He was a man of about 35 and he expected to be one of a houseparty of some 30 or so people. Instead, he found there were only 13 during the first week. In the second week there was no houseparty at all. He was the only person there. Mr Weibel could not speak English. So there was Mr Jarvis, in the second week, in this hotel with no houseparty at all, and no one could speak English, except himself. He was very disappointed, too, with the skiing. It was some distance away at Giswil. There were no ordinary length skis. There were only mini-skis, about 3 ft long. So he did not get his skiing as he wanted to. In the second week he did get some longer skis for a couple of days, but then, because of the boots, his feet got rubbed and he could not continue even with the long skis. So his skiing holiday, from his point of view, was pretty well ruined...

... The matter was summed up by the learned judge:

'... during the first week he got a holiday in Switzerland which was to some extent inferior... and, so too the second week he got a holiday which was very largely inferior [to what he was led to expect]. '

What is the legal position? I think that the statements in the brochure were representations or warranties. The breaches of them give Mr Jarvis a right to damages. It is not necessary to decide whether they were representations or warranties; because, since the Misrepresentation Act 1967, there is a remedy in damages for misrepresentation as well as for breach of warranty.

The one question in the case is: what is the amount of damages? The judge seems to have taken the difference in value between what he paid for and what he got. He said that he intended to give 'the difference between the two values and no other damages ' under any other head. He thought that Mr Jarvis had got half of what he paid for. So the judge gave him half the amount which he had paid, namely, £31.72. Mr Jarvis appeals to this court. He says that the damages ought to have been much more...

What is the right way of assessing damages? It has often been said that on a breach of contract damages cannot be given for mental distress. Thus in Hamlin v Great Northern Railway Co Pollock CB said that damages cannot be given 'for the disappointment of mind occasioned by the breach of contract'. And in Hobbs v London & South Western Railway Co Mellor J said that -

'... for the mere inconvenience, such as annoyance and loss of temper, or vexation, or for being disappointed in a particular thing which you have set your mind upon, without real physical inconvenience resulting, you cannot recover damages. '

The courts in those days only allowed the plaintiff to recover damages if he suffered physical inconvenience, such as, having to walk five miles home, as in Hobbs's case; or to live in an overcrowded house: see Bailey v Bullock.

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. 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 person injury cases for loss of amenities. Take the present case. Mr Jarvis has only a fortnight's holiday in the year. He books it far ahead, and looks forward to it all that time. He ought to be compensated for the loss of it.

A good illustration was given by Edmund Davis LJ in the course of the argument. He put the case of a man who has taken a ticket for Glyndbourne. It is the only night on which he can get there. He hires a car to take him. The car does not turn up. His damages are not limited to the mere cost of the ticket. He is entitled to general damages for the disappointment he has suffered and the loss of the entertainment which he should have had. Here, Mr Jarvis's fortnight ' s winter holiday has been a grave disappointment. It is true that he was conveyed to Switzerland and back and had meals and bed in the hotel. But that is not what he went for. He went to enjoy himself with all the facilities which the defendants said he would have. He is entitled to damages for the lack of those facilities, and for his loss of enjoyment.

A similar case occurred in 1951. It was Stedman v Swan's Tours. A holiday-maker was awarded damages because he did not get the bedroom and the accommodation which he was promised. The county court judge awarded him £13 15s. This court increased it to £50.

I think the judge was in error in taking the sum paid for the holiday, £63.45, and halving it. The right measure of damages is to compensate him for the loss of entertainment and enjoyment which he was promised, and which he did not get. Looking at the matter quite broadly, I think the damages in this case should be the sum of £125. I would allow the appeal accordingly.

lawindexpro - Case Law

Jarvis -v- swans tours ltd, court: court of appeal, date: 18 october 1972, coram: lord denning m.r., edmund davies and stephenson l.jj., references: [1973] 1 all er 71; [1972] 3 wlr 954.

LORD DENNING M.R. Mr. Jarvis is a solicitor, employed by a local authority at Barking. In 1969 he was minded to go for Christmas to Switzerland. He was looking forward to a skiing holiday. It is his one fortnight's holiday in the year. He prefers it in the winter rather than in the summer.

Mr. Jarvis read a brochure issued by Swans Tours Ltd. He was much attracted by the description of Morlialp, Giswil, Central Switzerland. I will not read the whole of it, but just pick out some of the principal attractions:

"House Party Centre with special resident host. . . . Morlialp is a most wonderful little resort on a sunny plateau . . . Up there you will find yourself in the midst of beautiful alpine scenery, which in winter becomes a wonderland of sun, snow and ice, with a wide variety of fine ski-runs, a skating rink and exhilarating toboggan run . . . Why did we choose the Hotel Krone . . . mainly and most of all because of the `Gemutlichkeit' and friendly welcome you will receive from Herr and Frau Weibel. . . . The Hotel Krone has its own Alphutte Bar which will be open several evenings a week. . . . No doubt you will be in for a great time, when you book this houseparty holiday . . . Mr. Weibel, the charming owner, speaks English."

On the same page, in a special yellow box, it was said:

"Swans House Party in Morlialp. All these House Party arrangements are included in the price of your holiday. Welcome party on arrival. Afternoon tea and cake for 7 days. Swiss dinner by candlelight. Fondue party. Yodler evening. Chali farewell party in the `Alphutte Bar'. Service of representative.

Alongside on the same page there was a special note about ski-packs. "Hire of Skis, Sticks and Boots . . . Ski Tuition . . . 12 days £11.10."

In August 1969, on the faith of that brochure, Mr. Jarvis booked a 15-day holiday, with ski-pack. The total charge was £63.45, including Christmas supplement. He was to fly from Gatwick to Zurich on December 20, 1969, and return on January 3, 1970.

The plaintiff went on the holiday, but he was very disappointed. He was a man of about 35 and he expected to be one of a house party of some 30 or so people. Instead, he found there were only 13 during the first week. In the second week there was no house party at all. He was the only person there. Mr. Weibel could not speak English. So there was Mr. Jarvis, in the second week, in this hotel with no house party at all, and no one could speak English, except himself. He was very disappointed, too, with the ski-ing. It was some distance away at Giswil. There were no ordinary length skis. There were only mini-skis, about 3 ft. long So he did not get his skiing as he wanted to. In the second week he did get some longer skis for a couple of days, but then, because oF the boots, his feet got rubbed and he could not continue even with the long skis. So his skiing holiday, from his point of view, was pretty well ruined.

There were many other matters, too. They appear trivial when they are set down in writing, but I have no doubt they loomed large in Mr. Jarvis's mind, when coupled with the other disappointments. He did not have the nice Swiss cakes which he was hoping for. The only cakes for tea were potato crisps and little dry nut cakes. The yodler evening consisted of one man from the locality who came in his working clothes for a little while, and sang four or five songs very quickly. The "Alphutte Bar" was an unoccupied annexe which was only open one evening. There was a representative, Mrs. Storr, there during the first week, but she was not there during the second week.

The matter was summed up by the judge:

"During the first week he got a holiday in Switzerland which was to some extent inferior . . . and, as to the second week, he got a holiday which was very largely inferior"

to what he was led to expect.

What is the legal position? I think that the statements in the brochure were representations or warranties. The breaches of them give Mr. Jarvis a right to damages. It is not necessary to decide whether they were representations or warranties: because since the Misrepresentation Act 1967, there is a remedy in damages for misrepresentation as well as for breach of warranty.

The one question in the case is: What is the amount of damages? The judge seems to have taken the difference in value between what he paid for and what he got. He said that he intended to give "the difference between the two values and no other damages" under any other head. He thought that Mr. Jarvis had got half of what he paid for. So the judge gave him half the amount which he had paid, namely, £31.72. Mr. Jarvis appeals to this court. He says that the damages ought to have been much more.

There is one point I must mention first. Counsel together made a very good note of the judge's judgment. They agreed it. It is very clear and intelligible. It shows plainly enough the ground of the judge's decision: but, by an oversight, it was not submitted to the judge, as it should have been: see Bruen v. Bruce (Practice Note) [1959] 1 W.L.R. 684. In some circumstances we should send it back to the judge for his comments. But I do not think we need do so here. The judge received the notice of appeal and made notes for our consideration. I do not think he would have wished to add to them. We will, therefore, decide the case on the material before us.

What is the right way of assessing damages? It has often been said that on a breach of contract damages cannot be given for mental distress. Thus in Hamlin v. Great Northern Railway Co. (1856) 1 H. & N. 408, 411 Pollock C.B. said that damages cannot be given "for the disappointment of mind occasioned by the breach of contract." And in Hobbs v. London & South Western Railway Co. (1875) L.R. 10 Q.B. 111, 122, Mellor J. said that

"for the mere inconvenience, such as annoyance and loss of temper, or vexation, or for being disappointed in a particular thing which you have set your mind upon, without real physical inconvenience resulting, you cannot recover damages."

The courts in those days only allowed the plaintiff to recover damages if he suffered physical inconvenience, such as having to walk five miles home, as in Hobbs' case; or to live in an over-crowded house, Bailey v. Bullock [1950] 2 All E.R. 1167.

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. 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. Take the present case. Mr. Jarvis has only a fortnight's holiday in the year. He books it far ahead, and looks forward to it all that time. He ought to be compensated for the loss of it.

A good illustration was given by Edmund Davies L.J. in the course of the argument. He put the case of a man who has taken a ticket for Glyndbourne. It is the only night on which he can get there. He hires a car to take him. The car does not turn up. His damages are not limited to the mere cost of the ticket. He is entitled to general damages for the disappointment he has suffered and the loss of the entertainment which he should have had. Here, Mr. Jarvis's fortnight's winter holiday has been a grave disappointment. It is true that he was conveyed to Switzerland and back and had meals and bed in the hotel. But that is not what he went for. He went to enjoy himself with all the facilities which the defendants said he would have. He is entitled to damages for the lack of those facilities, and for his loss of enjoyment.

A similar case occurred in 1951. It was Stedman v. Swan's Tours (1951) 95 S.J. 727. A holiday-maker was awarded damages because he did not get the bedroom and the accommodation which he was promised. The county court judge awarded him £13.15. This court increased it to £50.

I think the judge was in error in taking the sum paid for the holiday £63.45 and halving it. The right measure of damages is to compensate him for the loss of entertainment and enjoyment which he was promised, and which he did not get.

Looking at the matter quite broadly, I think the damages in this case should be the sum of £125. I would allow the appeal, accordingly.

EDMUND DAVIES L.J. Some of the observations of Mellor J. in the hundred-year-old case of Hobbs v. London & South Western Railway Co., L.R. 10 Q.B. 111, 122-124 call today for reconsideration. I must not be taken to accept that, under modern conditions and having regard to the developments which have taken place in the law of contract since that decision was given, it is right to say, as Mellor J. did at p. 122 that:

"for the mere inconvenience, such as annoyance and loss of temper, or vexation, or for being disappointed in a particular thing which you have set your mind upon, without real physical inconvenience resulting, you cannot recover damages. That is purely sentimental, and not a case where the word inconvenience, as I here use it, would apply."

On the contrary, there is authority for saying that even inconvenience that is not strictly physical may be a proper element in the assessment of damages. In Griffiths v. Evans [1953] 1 W.L.R. 1424, in the course of a dissenting judgment where a solicitor was being sued for negligence in wrongly advising a plaintiff as to his right to sue his employers at common law, Denning L.J. said at p. 1432 that the damages should be assessed "by taking into account the inconvenience and expense to which the plaintiff will be put in suing the employers, and the risk of failure."

Be that as it may, Mellor J. was dealing with a contract of carriage and the undertaking of the railway company was entirely different from that of the defendants in the present case. These travel agents made clear by their lavishly illustrated brochure with its ecstatic text that what they were contracting to provide was not merely air travel, hotel accommodation and meals of a certain standard. To quote the assurance they gave regarding the Morlialp House Party Centre, "No doubt you will be in for a great time, when you book this House Party Holiday." The result was that they did not limit themselves to the obligation to ensure that an air passage was booked, that hotel accommodation was reserved, that food was provided and that these items would measure up to the standards they themselves set up. They went further than that. They assured and undertook to provide a holiday of a certain quality, with "Gemutlichkeit" (that is to say, geniality, comfort and cosiness) as its overall characteristics, and "a great time," the enjoyable outcome which would surely result to all but the most determined misanthrope.

If in such circumstances travel agents fail to provide a holiday of the contracted quality, they are liable in damages. In assessing those damages the court is not, in my judgment, restricted by the £63.45 paid by the client for his holiday. Nor is it confined to matters of physical inconvenience and discomfort, or even to quantifying the difference between such items as the expected delicious Swiss cakes and the depressingly desiccated biscuits and crisps provided for tea, between the ski-pack ordered and the miniature skis supplied, nor between the "very good . . . houseparty arrangements" assured and the lone wolf second week of the unfortunate plaintiff's stay. The court is entitled, and indeed bound, to contrast the overall quality of the holiday so enticingly promised with that which the defendants in fact provided.

In determining what would be proper compensation for the defendants' marked failure to fulfil their undertaking I am of the opinion that, again to use Mellor J.'s terms [L.R. 10 Q.B. 111, 122], "vexation" and "being disappointed in a particular thing you have set your mind upon" are relevant considerations which afford the court a guide in arriving at a proper figure.

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 lagely unfulfilled, in my judgment it would be quite wrong to say that his disappointment must find no reflection in the damages to be awarded. And it is right to add that, in the course of his helpful submissions, Mr. Thompson did not go so far as to submit anything of the kind. Judge Alun Pugh took that view in Feldman v. Allways Travel Service [1957] C.L.Y. 934. That, too, was a holiday case. The highly experienced senior county court judge there held that the correct measure of damages was the difference between the price paid and the value of the holiday in fact furnished, "taking into account the plaintiff's feelings of annoyance and frustration."

The trial judge clearly failed to approach his task in this way, which in my judgment is the proper way to be adopted in the present case. He said:

"There is no evidence of inconvenience or discomfort, other than that arising out of the breach of contract and covered by my award. There was no evidence of physical discomfort, e.g., bedroom not up to standard."

His failure is manifested, not only by these words, but also by the extremely small damages he awarded, calculated, be it noted, as one half of the cost of the holiday. Instead of "a great time," the plaintiff's reasonable and proper hopes were largely and lamentably unfulfilled. To arrive at a proper compensation for the defendants' failure is no easy matter. But in my judgment we should not be compensating the plaintiff excessively were we to award him the £125 damages proposed by Lord Denning M.R. therefore concur in allowing this appeal.

STEPHENSON L.J. I agree. What damage has the plaintiff suffered for the loss to him which has resulted from the defendants' breaches of this winter sports holiday contract and was within the reasonable contemplation of the parties to this contract as a likely result of its being so broken? This seems to me to be the question raised by this interesting case.

The judge has, as I understand his judgment, held that the value of the plaintiff's loss was what he paid under the contract for his holiday; that as a result of the defendants' breaches of contract he has lost not the whole of what he has paid for, but broadly speaking a half of it; and what he has lost and what reduces its value by about one half includes such inconvenience as the plaintiff suffered from the holiday he got not being, by reason of the defendants' breaches, as valuable as the holiday he paid for.

I approach the judge's judgment bearing in mind the unfortunate fact that counsel's note of it has not been submitted to him for his approval in accordance with what has been said by this court about the rule which is now R.S.C., Ord. 59, r. 19 (4). I agree with the judge that the breaches were not fundamental, that the consideration for the plaintiff's payment to the defendants did not wholly fail and that, although the plaintiff was frustrated, the contract was not. In my judgment, however, the judge seems to have under-valued the loss to the plaintiff from the breaches which he found: no welcome party; no suitable cakes for afternoon tea; no yodler evening in the true sense of the words; the Alphutte Bar not open several evenings of the week; no service of the representative in the second week and no house party arrangements for the second week; no English spoken by Mr. Weibel, the owner; no full length skis until the second week; not much fun at night and no tobogganing or bowling by day or by night.

The judge in assessing the loss also under-estimated the inconvenience to the plaintiff, perhaps because he followed the distinction drawn by Mellor J. in Hobbs' case, L.R. 10 Q.B. 111, 122-123, and disallowed any inconvenience or discomfort that was not physical, in so far as that can be defined. I agree that, as suggested in McGregor on Damages, 13th ed. (1972), p. 45, para. 68, there may be contracts in which the parties contemplate inconvenience on breach which may be described as mental: frustration, annoyance, disappointment; and, as Mr. Thompson concedes that this is such a contract, the damages for breach of it should take such wider inconvenience or discomfort into account.

I further agree with my Lords that the judge was wrong in taking, as I think he must have taken, the amount the plaintiff paid the defendants for his holiday as the value of the holiday which they agreed to provide. They ought to have contemplated, and no doubt did contemplate, that he was accepting their offer of this holiday as an offer of something which would benefit him and which he would enjoy, and that if they broke their contract and provided him with a holiday lacking in some of the things which they contracted to include in it, they would thereby reduce his enjoyment of the holiday and the benefit he would derive from it.

These considerations lead me to agree with my Lords that the judge was wrong in applying to this contract to provide a winter sports holiday the method of measuring damages for breach of warranty set out in section 53 (3) of the Sale of Goods Act 1893, as it was applied in Feldman's case [1957] C.L.Y. 934, and that rather than try to put a value on the subject matter of this contract, first as promised and then as performed, and to include the inconvenience to the plaintiff in the process, we should award the plaintiff a sum of general damages for all the breaches of contract at the figure suggested by Lord Denning M.R.

I would add that I think the judge was right in rejecting the plaintiff's ingenious claim, however it is put, for a fortnight's salary. I agree that the appeal should be allowed and the plaintiff be awarded £125 damages.

Appeal allowed.

Damages of £125 awarded with costs in the Court of Appeal and in the county court.

Jarvis v. Swans Tours Ltd.

1 q.b. 233 (1973).

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register., rule of law, holding and decision, legal analysis, © 2007- 2024 abn study partner..

• Privacy Policy
• Legal Statements
• Terms and Conditions

© 2024 Casebriefsco.com. All Rights Reserved.

Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd (1973) 2 QB 233; 1 All ER 71

This case considered the issue of damages and whether or not a man was entitled to an award of damages for a holiday that proved to be less enjoyable than he had expected based on the assurances of the travel agent who sold him the holiday.

Share this case by email

Share this case study

Like this case study, like student law notes.

• Administrative Law
• Constitution
• Approaching Problems
• Categorizing Terms
• Indigenous Law and Contracts
• Interpretation
• Limiting Liability
• Polkawagen Exercise
• Chaplin v Hicks
• Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v New Garage and Motor Co
• Fidler v Sun Life Assurance
• Folland v Reardon
• Groves v John Wunder

Jarvis v Swan Tours

• Peevyhouse v Garland
• Ruxley Electronics
• Voris v Insurance Corp of BC
• Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co
• Equitable Remedies
• Written Contracts
• Criminal Process
• Individual-Employer Relationship
• Law, Legislation, and Policy
• Secured Transactions
• Jarvis pays for vacation in Swiss Alps through Swan
• Advertised as party vacation
• Owner spoke no English
• No one else there second week

Decision: Jarvis could recover damages for cost of holiday, but also for "disappointment, the distress, the upset and frustration caused by the breach" [Denning]

Jarvis V Swans Tours Ltd - Judgment

Lord Denning MR held that Mr Jarvis could recover damages for the cost of his holiday, but also damages for "disappointment, the distress, the upset and frustration caused by the breach." He said old limitations on damages for distress and disappointment are "out of date". Accordingly, £125 was awarded.

Edmund Davies LJ and Stephenson LJ concurred.

Read more about this topic:  Jarvis V Swans Tours Ltd

Famous quotes containing the word judgment :

“ For why should my liberty be subject to the judgment of someone else’s conscience? ” — Bible: New Testament , 1 Corinthians 10:29. Paul. His belief is that, out of charity, one should not offend the conscience of another.

“ In action, the English have the advantage enjoyed by free men always entitled to free discussion: of having a ready judgment on every question. We Germans, on the other hand, are always thinking. We think so much that we never form a judgment . ” — Heinrich Heine (1797–1856)

“ If a man is a good lawyer, a good physician, a good engineer ... he may be a fool in every other capacity. But no deficiency or mistake of judgment is forgiven to a woman ... and should she fail anywhere, if she has any scientific attainment, or artistic faculty, instead of standing her interest as an excuse, it is censured as an aggravation and offence. ” — E.P.P. , U.S. women’s magazine contributor. The Una, p. 28 ( February 1855)