In fact trustees held the property and Mr Harman had been entitled to only a moiety of the rent during his life.

As a result of this breach of contract Mr Robinson, according to the plea, "lost and was deprived of great gains and profits, which would otherwise have accrued to him, and paid, expended, and incurred liability to pay divers sums of money, in and about the preparation of the said agreement and lease, etc, amounting, to wit, to £20.” Lord Denman CJ heard the trial at the Surrey Spring Assizes.

The judge found that Mr Robinson was entitled to £200 (including court expenses) to cover his loss from not getting the house.

At appeal, the Court of Exchequer Chamber held that where a party agrees to grant a good and valid lease, having full knowledge that he has no title, the plaintiff, in an action for the breach of such agreement, may recover, beyond his expenses, damages resulting from the loss of his bargain; and the defendant cannot, under a plea of payment of money into court, give evidence that the plaintiff was aware of the defect of title.

Therefore the defendant, having undertaken to grant a valid lease, not having any colour of title, must pay the loss which the plaintiff has sustained by not having that for which he contracted.Platt B added, Upon general principle, I cannot distinguish this case from Hopkins v Grazebrook.