In recent years, the availability of pecuniary compensation for failure to complete a contract for the sale of land has provoked considerable discussion, both in the courts and elsewhere. Where such a failure has occurred, a number of possible claims are open to the other party. His most obvious source of pecuniary compensation is undoubtedly an action for damages for breach of contract. Alternatively, he may seek to obtain damages in lieu of a decree for specific performance. Further, he may be able, in appropriate circumstances, to seek damages for misrepresentation either under the law of tort or under the provisions of the Misrepresentation Act 1967. Finally, if he is the purchaser, he may be able to base a claim for pecuniary compensation on the fact that the vendor is a constructive trustee of the subject matter of the contract pending completion. The interrelation of these different remedies (which have often been held to give very different measures of recovery) both with one another and with the remedies of specific performance and rescission has given rise to a number of difficulties, several of which had to be considered by the House of Lords in the recent case of Johnson v. Agnew. The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast these different remedies in the light of the recent authorities.

The Bucks. Constabulary Widows' and Orphans' Fund Friendly Society was set up primarily to provide for the relief of the widows and orphans of deceased members of the Bucks. Constabulary. It was financed by voluntary contributions from the members. There was nothing in the rules about the destination of the society's property on its dissolution. In April 1968 the Thames Valley Constabulary came into being, an amalgamation of the Bucks. Constabulary and other forces. An effective instrument of dissolution of the society was signed on 14 October 1969; and Walton J. found himself facing in Re Bucks. Constabulary (No. 2) the question of “the destination of the assets of the friendly society …” Walton J. took the view that most past decisions “in relation to the destination of the funds of unincorporated associations” had “lost sight of” the “quite elementary … question of the property of unincorporated associations in the round.” He therefore proceeded to outline the general law on the holding of property by unincorporated associations as a necessary prelude to his decision on the destination of the funds. This was unquestionably the correct course to follow. It is suggested, however, that Walton J.'s view “in the round” on the holding of property by unincorporated associations is too simple, and that circumstances will arise in which a more complex problem on the destination of funds might arise, and which will surely call for a more complex answer. It must also be noted that Walton J. did not have to deal with the question of funds accruing to a society from outside sources, i.e., other than from the members themselves.

Where injury or damage is caused by a public authority in the exercise of its functions it would be broadly true to say that the tendency of the modern law is to equate the authority with a private person or trading company causing the same loss. Qualifications exist, of course, the most important being those relating to the Crown, to statutory authority for works which would otherwise be a nuisance and the principle that the courts should not interfere with intra vires “policy” decisions, but there are now comparatively few substantive or adjectival rules putting a public authority in a protected position. Indeed, there is now some demand that we should place public authorities in an inferior position by exposing them to a regime of strict liability for the risks they create in pursuit of a supposed benefit for us all. In view of this attitude it is perhaps not surprising that we tend to consider the public authority only as defendant, but a recent Court of Appeal decision reminds us that there are still instances of legislative solicitude for the authority as plaintiff. The background involves a long and still unsettled wrangle over statutory interpretation beginning with the famous case of River Wear Commissioners v. Adamson.