How many times has [1996] A.C. 344 been cited?

[1996] A.C. 344 is cited by 2 judgment(s) in this dataset.

[1996] A.C. 344

· cited by 2 · influence score 13/100

Is it still good law? No negative treatment found in this dataset — it has been cited without being doubted or overruled here.

How to cite

[1996] A.C. 344

Neutral citation format (OSCOLA). Always confirm against the official judgment.

Cited · 2

Cited — MDW Holdings Limited v James Robert Horvill & Ors. 2022-06-28
“…t of damages in a contractual claim on the basis of cost of cure or difference in value springs to mind. In Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd. v. Forsyth [1996] A.C. 344, 360G, Lord Mustill said: ‘There are not two alternative measures of damages, as opposite poles, but only one; namely, the loss truly suffered by the promisee.…”
Cited — Manchikalapati & Ors v Zurich Insurance Plc (t/a Zurich Building Guarantee & Zurich Municipal) & Ors 2019-12-05
“…good the defects: see Darlington BC v Wiltshier Northern Limited [1995] 1 WLR 68 at 79, and contrast with Ruxley Electronics and Construction Limited v Forsyth [1996] A.C. 344 at 366, HL.…”