quaero, an emptor Gaio Seio ad praestationem frumenti sit obnoxius. respondit emptorem Gaio Seio secundum ea quae proponerentur obligatum non esse.

lands. The proprietor could bind himself, but the law did not admit the possibility of charging the property with an obligation transmissible to his successors. No doubt the owner could

purchaser bound to deliver the corn to Gaius Seius? The answer was that, in the circumstances stated, the purchaser was not liable to Gaius Seius.

burden the lands with servitudes, but the rule was seruitus in faciendo consistere nequit, 'the servitude could not degenerate into an obligation' (Ihering).

BOOK XIX.

TITLE I.

DE ACTIONIBUS EMPTI UENDITI.

LIBER DECIMUS NONUS.

TIT. I.

DE ACTIONIBUS EMPTI UENDITI.1

1. ULPIANUS libro XXVIII ad Sabinum.

Si res uendita non tradatur, in id quod interest agitur, hoc est quod rem habere interest emptoris: hoc autem interdum pretium egreditur, si pluris interest quam res ualet uel empta est.

L. 1 pr. On the measure of damages for delay in delivery and for non-delivery, see this title LL. 3, §§ 3, 4; 11, §§ 9-14; 13, 9; 21, §§ 2, 3; 22; 23; 25; 32; 43; Code iv. 49. 12; Pothier, Vente, §§ 69-80.

The English common law rule is that the party sustaining loss by breach of contract is, so far as money can do it, to be placed in the same position as if the contract had been performed. This is limited by the rule in Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) 9 Ex. 341, which, putting out of view what the parties may be supposed to have had in contemplation, sets up as an objective standard of damages what a reasonable man, with the same information as the parties had, would have contemplated as the probable result of the breach, if he had directed his mind to the question. The measure of general or ordinary damages (ie. in a contract where there are no special circumstances) is the estimated loss arising directly and naturally from the breach itself. If the contract was made under special circumstances known to both parties, which, in the ordinary course of events, would occasion a special loss if the contract were broken, there is an implied liability to pay special damages for the special loss. See S. G. B. § 55, and Hammond & Co. v. Bussey (1887) 20 Q. B. Div. 86, where, the seller having failed to supply coals answering the description 'steam coal,' and the buyer having resold with a similar warranty, the buyer received from the seller the costs of defending an action by the sub-purchaser for breach. The general rule in Hadley v. 1 Cp. Code iv. 49.