the dangers of sending the wrong signal to the deliberate contract breaker (albeit on the facts of this case, Ruxley had behaved perfectly properly, with Forsyth being the intransigent party) and of the need for an award to properly take account of legitimate consumer expectations:

Lord Mustill (p 359): My Lords, I agree that this appeal should be allowed for the reasons stated by my noble and learned friends, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle and Lord Lloyd of Berwick. I add some observations of my own on the award by the trial judge of damages in a sum intermediate between, on the one hand, the full cost of reinstatement and, on the other, the amount by which the malperformance has diminished the market value of the property on which the work was done: in this particular case, nil. This is a question of everyday practical importance to householders who have engaged contractors to carry out small building works, and then find (as often happens) that performance has fallen short of what was promised. I think it proper to enter on the question here, although there is no appeal against the award, because the possibility of such a recovery in a suitable case sheds light on the employer’s claim that reinstatement is the only proper measure of damage.