contract-law england-and-wales
Why&#39;s it paradoxical that Wrotham Park damages protect the claimant’s performance interest by enforcing a sale of the claimant’s right?
<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/opNrB.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer">I scanned both pages</a>. Mindy Chen-Wishart. <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Contract-Law-Mindy-Chen-Wishart/dp/0198806353/ref=dp_ob_title_bk" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Contract Law</em> (2018 6 edn)</a>. p 538. </p>

<blockquote>
  <ol start="5">
  <li>Paradoxically, <em>Wrotham Park</em> damages protect the claimant’s performance interest by
  enforcing a sale of the claimant’s right.</li>
  </ol>
</blockquote>

<ol>
<li><p>How do "<em>Wrotham Park</em> damages protect the claimant’s performance interest by
enforcing a sale of the claimant’s right"?</p></li>
<li><p>Why's this paradoxical? </p></li>
</ol>

<p><a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Ansons-Law-Contract-Jack-Beatson/dp/0198734786/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;psc=1&amp;refRID=ZW82SGPZDB8D0GKSVMV4" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Anson's Law of Contract</em> (2016 30 ed)</a>.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Having said that, one can perhaps defend the view that the damages in <em>Wrotham
  Park</em> were compensatory on the basis that it was the loss of the opportunity to sell
  the right in the future that was being compensated; or that the claimant was being
  compensated for a non- pecuniary loss (ie the claimant valued the right so much— to
  protect the views over that land— that it would not have been willing to sell it).<sup>78</sup></p>
  
  <p><sup>78</sup>See above pp 566– 8.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I rectified a typo in the last sentence in <a href="https://old.reddit.com/r/LawCanada/comments/ec9bvb/whys_it_paradoxical_that_wrotham_park_damages/fbahofs/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this r/lawcanada comment</a>.</p>

<hr>

<p>The quantum of damages is the amount required to release the restrictive covenant.  The paradox is (from the perspective of the party benefiting from the covenant) is that the "protection" is just the cost to release the covenant.</p>

<p>Think of it this way (real estate context) a developer owns a bunch of land.  He develops it into a subdivision, but retains one lot (to build his own home) and puts in place a covenant that the other owners cannot cut down the mature trees on the developed lots (as the developer enjoys the looks of the trees).  Is it then fair to say that the developer is "protected" because if a landowner cuts down a mature tree, they will have to pay Wrotham Park damages? (being an amount required to get permission to cut down the trees...)</p>

<p>If the developer really just enjoys the aesthetics of the trees - no monetary award is truly fair compensation.  The paradox being - that the only "protection" is the cost to give a release of the covenant.</p>
