Mr Forsyth contracted for a swimming pool to be built adjacent to his house, specifying that the pool should be of a depth of 7 feet 6 inches at the deep end. His contractors, Ruxley Electronics, constructed a pool with a maximum depth of 6 feet 9 inches. When the contractors sued upon their invoice, Mr Forsyth counter-claimed for damages due to the pool’s non-conformity with the contract. The trial judge, H.H. Judge Diamond, Q.C., found the following facts. First, the pool was perfectly safe for diving. Secondly, the shortfall in the pool’s depth did not decrease its value. Thirdly, the only way to increase the depth was by demolishing the non-conforming pool and starting again at a cost of £21,650. Fourthly, Mr Forsyth had no intention of building a new pool. Finally, it would be unreasonable to rebuild as the benefits of a conforming pool were wholly disproportionate to the cost. Therefore, the appropriate basic measure of Mr Forsyth’s loss was the