Betterment - Revision history

Editor at 09:37, 21 December 2021

2021-12-21T09:37:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:37, 21 December 2021
Line 13:		Line 13:
	NB Betterment can also be a consideration for leases, where work to repair dilapidations at the end of a lease is priced, or the reduction in the value of a property as a result of dilapidations is assessed. See Dilapidations for more information.		NB Betterment can also be a consideration for leases, where work to repair dilapidations at the end of a lease is priced, or the reduction in the value of a property as a result of dilapidations is assessed. See Dilapidations for more information.

−	= Related articles =	+	= Related articles on Designing Buildings =

	* Breach of contract.		* Breach of contract.
Line 24:		Line 24:
	* Defects.		* Defects.
	* Dilapidations.		* Dilapidations.
		+	* Licence for Alterations for Apartment.
	* Liquidated damages.		* Liquidated damages.
	* Loss and expense.		* Loss and expense.

Designing Buildings at 06:22, 2 September 2021

2021-09-02T06:22:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:22, 2 September 2021
Line 13:		Line 13:
	NB Betterment can also be a consideration for leases, where work to repair dilapidations at the end of a lease is priced, or the reduction in the value of a property as a result of dilapidations is assessed. See Dilapidations for more information.		NB Betterment can also be a consideration for leases, where work to repair dilapidations at the end of a lease is priced, or the reduction in the value of a property as a result of dilapidations is assessed. See Dilapidations for more information.

−	~~= Find out more =~~	+	= Related articles =
−		+
−	=== Related articles ~~on Designing Buildings Wiki ==~~=	+

	* Breach of contract.		* Breach of contract.

Designing Buildings at 07:39, 26 October 2020

2020-10-26T07:39:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:39, 26 October 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
−
	Betterment is an improvement that adds the value to a property or facility. Betterment is a topic of particular relevance to defective building works and involves consideration of both measure of damages and mitigation.		Betterment is an improvement that adds the value to a property or facility. Betterment is a topic of particular relevance to defective building works and involves consideration of both measure of damages and mitigation.

	Generally, if repair works are carried out to a higher standard than was necessary, the betterment will be deducted from any damages claimed. However, if the claimant had no choice other than to carry out the works in that way, then no deduction will be made.		Generally, if repair works are carried out to a higher standard than was necessary, the betterment will be deducted from any damages claimed. However, if the claimant had no choice other than to carry out the works in that way, then no deduction will be made.

−	In Harbutts Plasticine Limited v Wayne Tank & Pump Co Limited (1970), the court held that the plaintiffs were not required to give credit under the heading of betterment merely because they had replaced an old building with a new one of modern design.	+	In Harbutts Plasticine Limited v Wayne Tank & Pump Co Limited (1970), the court held that the plaintiffs were not required to give credit under the heading of betterment merely because they had replaced an old building with a new one of modern design.

	Widgery LJ stated:		Widgery LJ stated:

−	'The plaintiffs rebuilt their factory to a substantially different design, and if this had involved expenditure beyond the costs of replacing the old, the difference might not have been recoverable, but there is no suggestion of this here. Nor do I accept that the plaintiffs must give credit under the heading of "betterment" for the fact that their new factory is modern in design and material. To do so would be the equivalent of forcing the plaintiffs to invest their money in the modernising of their plant which might be highly inconvenient for them.’	+	'The plaintiffs rebuilt their factory to a substantially different design, and if this had involved expenditure beyond the costs of replacing the old, the difference might not have been recoverable, but there is no suggestion of this here. Nor do I accept that the plaintiffs must give credit under the heading of "betterment" for the fact that their new factory is modern in design and material. To do so would be the equivalent of forcing the plaintiffs to invest their money in the modernising of their plant which might be highly inconvenient for them.’

	In Governors of the Hospital for Sick Children and Another v McLaughlin and Harvey Plc and Others (1987) the issue of unnecessary expenditure was approached from the point of view of mitigation. The defendants endeavoured to argue that despite the plaintiffs' reliance on expert opinion the plaintiffs had not acted reasonably in selecting their repair scheme. The court rejected the defendants' argument (see also Skandia Property (UK) and Another v. Thames Water Utilities Ltd.)		In Governors of the Hospital for Sick Children and Another v McLaughlin and Harvey Plc and Others (1987) the issue of unnecessary expenditure was approached from the point of view of mitigation. The defendants endeavoured to argue that despite the plaintiffs' reliance on expert opinion the plaintiffs had not acted reasonably in selecting their repair scheme. The court rejected the defendants' argument (see also Skandia Property (UK) and Another v. Thames Water Utilities Ltd.)
Line 17:		Line 16:

	=== Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki ===		=== Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki ===
−	*Breach of contract.
−	*Causation.
−	*Collateral warranty.
−	*Consequential losses.
−	*Contract.
−	*Contract v tort.
−	*Damages
−	*Defects.
−	*Dilapidations.
−	*Liquidated damages.
−	*Loss and expense.
−	*Measure of damages.
−	*Schedule of condition.
−	*Supersession.

−	[[Category:~~Case_law~~]] [[Category:~~DCN_Case_Law~~]]	+	* Breach of contract.
−	[[Category:Property_law]]	+	* Causation.
		+	* Collateral warranty.
		+	* Consequential losses.
		+	* Contract.
		+	* Contract v tort.
		+	* Damages
		+	* Defects.
		+	* Dilapidations.
		+	* Liquidated damages.
		+	* Loss and expense.
		+	* Measure of damages.
		+	* Schedule of condition.
		+	* Supersession.
		+
		+	[[Category:DCN_Case_Law]] [[Category:DCN_Definition]] [[Category:DCN_Guidance]] [[Category:Case_law]] [[Category:Property_law]]

Designing Buildings at 09:59, 20 October 2014

2014-10-20T09:59:03Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:59, 20 October 2014
Line 29:		Line 29:
	*Loss and expense.		*Loss and expense.
	*Measure of damages.		*Measure of damages.
		+	*Schedule of condition.
	*Supersession.		*Supersession.

−	[[Category:Case_law]]	+	[[Category:Case_law]] [[Category:DCN_Case_Law]]
	[[Category:Property_law]]		[[Category:Property_law]]

Designing Buildings at 07:06, 11 May 2014

2014-05-11T07:06:21Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:06, 11 May 2014
Line 29:		Line 29:
	*Loss and expense.		*Loss and expense.
	*Measure of damages.		*Measure of damages.
		+	*Supersession.

	[[Category:Case_law]]		[[Category:Case_law]]
	[[Category:Property_law]]		[[Category:Property_law]]

Designing Buildings at 09:22, 8 May 2014

2014-05-08T09:22:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:22, 8 May 2014
Line 11:		Line 11:

	In Governors of the Hospital for Sick Children and Another v McLaughlin and Harvey Plc and Others (1987) the issue of unnecessary expenditure was approached from the point of view of mitigation. The defendants endeavoured to argue that despite the plaintiffs' reliance on expert opinion the plaintiffs had not acted reasonably in selecting their repair scheme. The court rejected the defendants' argument (see also Skandia Property (UK) and Another v. Thames Water Utilities Ltd.)		In Governors of the Hospital for Sick Children and Another v McLaughlin and Harvey Plc and Others (1987) the issue of unnecessary expenditure was approached from the point of view of mitigation. The defendants endeavoured to argue that despite the plaintiffs' reliance on expert opinion the plaintiffs had not acted reasonably in selecting their repair scheme. The court rejected the defendants' argument (see also Skandia Property (UK) and Another v. Thames Water Utilities Ltd.)
		+
		+	NB Betterment can also be a consideration for leases, where work to repair dilapidations at the end of a lease is priced, or the reduction in the value of a property as a result of dilapidations is assessed. See Dilapidations for more information.

	= Find out more =		= Find out more =

Designing Buildings at 09:14, 8 May 2014

2014-05-08T09:14:13Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:14, 8 May 2014
Line 23:		Line 23:
	*Damages		*Damages
	*Defects.		*Defects.
		+	*Dilapidations.
	*Liquidated damages.		*Liquidated damages.
	*Loss and expense.		*Loss and expense.

Designing Buildings at 07:03, 23 June 2013

2013-06-23T07:03:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:03, 23 June 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:

−	Betterment is an improvement that adds the value to a property or facility.	+	Betterment is an improvement that adds the value to a property or facility. Betterment is a topic of particular relevance to defective building works and involves consideration of both measure of damages and mitigation.

−	~~Betterment is~~ a ~~topic of particular relevance~~ to ~~defective building~~ works ~~and involves consideration of both measure of damage and mitigation~~.	+	Generally, if repair works are carried out to a higher standard than was necessary, the betterment will be deducted from any damages claimed. However, if the claimant had no choice other than to carry out the works in that way, then no deduction will be made.

−	Generally, If repair works are carried out to a higher standard than was necessary, the betterment will be deducted from damages claimed. However, if the claimant had no choice other than to carry out the works in that way, then no deduction will be made.	+	In Harbutts Plasticine Limited v Wayne Tank & Pump Co Limited (1970), the court held that the plaintiffs were not required to give credit under the heading of betterment merely because they had replaced an old building with a new one of modern design.
−		+
−	In ~~the Harbutts Plasticine case (~~Harbutts Plasticine Limited v Wayne Tank & Pump Co Limited (1970)), the court held that the plaintiffs were not required to give credit under the heading of betterment merely because they had replaced an old building with a new one of modern design.	+

	Widgery LJ stated:		Widgery LJ stated:
Line 12:		Line 10:
	'The plaintiffs rebuilt their factory to a substantially different design, and if this had involved expenditure beyond the costs of replacing the old, the difference might not have been recoverable, but there is no suggestion of this here. Nor do I accept that the plaintiffs must give credit under the heading of "betterment" for the fact that their new factory is modern in design and material. To do so would be the equivalent of forcing the plaintiffs to invest their money in the modernising of their plant which might be highly inconvenient for them.’		'The plaintiffs rebuilt their factory to a substantially different design, and if this had involved expenditure beyond the costs of replacing the old, the difference might not have been recoverable, but there is no suggestion of this here. Nor do I accept that the plaintiffs must give credit under the heading of "betterment" for the fact that their new factory is modern in design and material. To do so would be the equivalent of forcing the plaintiffs to invest their money in the modernising of their plant which might be highly inconvenient for them.’

−	In Governors of the Hospital for Sick Children and Another v McLaughlin and Harvey Plc and ~~Other~~ the issue of unnecessary expenditure was approached from the point of view of mitigation. The defendants endeavoured to argue that despite the plaintiffs' reliance on expert opinion the plaintiffs had not acted reasonably in selecting their repair scheme. The court rejected the defendants' argument. (~~See~~ also Skandia Property (UK) and Another v. Thames Water Utilities Ltd.)	+	In Governors of the Hospital for Sick Children and Another v McLaughlin and Harvey Plc and Others (1987) the issue of unnecessary expenditure was approached from the point of view of mitigation. The defendants endeavoured to argue that despite the plaintiffs' reliance on expert opinion the plaintiffs had not acted reasonably in selecting their repair scheme. The court rejected the defendants' argument (see also Skandia Property (UK) and Another v. Thames Water Utilities Ltd.)

	= Find out more =		= Find out more =

	=== Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki ===		=== Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki ===
−	*Breach of contract.	+	*Breach of contract.
−	*Causation.	+	*Causation.
−	*Collateral warranty.	+	*Collateral warranty.
−	*Consequential losses.	+	*Consequential losses.
−	*Contract.	+	*Contract.
	*Contract v tort.		*Contract v tort.
	*Damages		*Damages
−	*Liquidated damages.	+	*Defects.
−	*Loss and expense.	+	*Liquidated damages.
		+	*Loss and expense.
	*Measure of damages.		*Measure of damages.

	[[Category:Case_law]]		[[Category:Case_law]]
	[[Category:Property_law]]		[[Category:Property_law]]

Designing Buildings: Created page with " Betterment is an improvement that adds the value to a property or facility. Betterment is a topic of particular relevance to defective building works and involves consideration..."

2013-06-22T12:10:36Z

Created page with " Betterment is an improvement that adds the value to a property or facility. Betterment is a topic of particular relevance to defective building works and involves consideration..."

New page

Betterment is an improvement that adds the value to a property or facility.

Betterment is a topic of particular relevance to defective building works and involves consideration of both measure of damage and mitigation.

Generally, If repair works are carried out to a higher standard than was necessary, the betterment will be deducted from damages claimed. However, if the claimant had no choice other than to carry out the works in that way, then no deduction will be made.

In the Harbutts Plasticine case (Harbutts Plasticine Limited v Wayne Tank & Pump Co Limited (1970)), the court held that the plaintiffs were not required to give credit under the heading of betterment merely because they had replaced an old building with a new one of modern design.

Widgery LJ stated:

'The plaintiffs rebuilt their factory to a substantially different design, and if this had involved expenditure beyond the costs of replacing the old, the difference might not have been recoverable, but there is no suggestion of this here. Nor do I accept that the plaintiffs must give credit under the heading of "betterment" for the fact that their new factory is modern in design and material. To do so would be the equivalent of forcing the plaintiffs to invest their money in the modernising of their plant which might be highly inconvenient for them.’

In Governors of the Hospital for Sick Children and Another v McLaughlin and Harvey Plc and Other the issue of unnecessary expenditure was approached from the point of view of mitigation. The defendants endeavoured to argue that despite the plaintiffs' reliance on expert opinion the plaintiffs had not acted reasonably in selecting their repair scheme. The court rejected the defendants' argument. (See also Skandia Property (UK) and Another v. Thames Water Utilities Ltd.)

= Find out more =

=== Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki ===
*Breach of contract.
*Causation.
*Collateral warranty.
*Consequential losses.
*Contract.
*Contract v tort.
*Damages
*Liquidated damages.
*Loss and expense.
*Measure of damages.

[[Category:Case_law]]
[[Category:Property_law]]