Many aggreived claimants feel that, although they have suffered no physical or psychological injury at the hands of defendants, they should be compensated as a result of inconvenience, disappointment, distress or annoyance arising from the defendants' actions.So, w hether it is because the builder left his house in a mess, the hotel was a disaster or the next door neighbour played his music too loudly, you may be asked to advise on whether damages can be awarded and, if so, how much.Because this sort of claim does not involve any identifiable physical or psychiatric injury and is simply a claim for general damages, it does not need to be supported by a medical report and is usually likely to be allocated to the small claims track unless part of a larger claim.When there is a contractIt is well established that, as a general rule and subject to any express provisions in the contract, a breach of contract does not normally give rise to an entitlement to damages for inconvenience, distress or disappointment -- however serious that may be.

In contract law, even damages for loss of reputation are not normally awarded (Addis v Gramophone Co [1909] AC 488).

Only damages for the physical loss, naturally arising, are generally awarded, and then usually restricted to actual monetary loss.

It was said in Watts v Morrow [1991] 1 WLR 1421 by Lord Justice Bingham that it was not a question that such losses were unforeseeable that led to this rule, but more a matter of policy.Pleasure principle in contract casesAn important exception exists to the general rule outlined above where the basic purpose of the contract is to provide pleasure.

In such cases, a failure to perform may well lead to the award of damages for disappointment or distress.

And so, where the holiday is spoilt or the wedding photographs or wedding car fail to materialise, there can be an expectation that damages of a modest nature will be awarded.Jarvis v Swan Tours [1973] 1 All ER 71 laid the ground for such a principle.

In that case, an over- enthusiastic description of a skiing holiday led to disappointment.

The claimant was awarded damages which today would be worth about £1,000.

Subsequent decisions have established that holiday or wedding disappointment will attract damages, but the courts have been reluctant to extend the principle.

In Farley v Skinner (No 2) (2000) The Times, 14 February CA, an attempt was made to claim compensation for distress where a surveyor failed to report that a property would be significantly affected by noise from a nearby airport.

At first instance the claimant was awarded £10,000 damages for his disappointment and distress.

However, the Court of Appeal took a more restrictive view.Unless the contract was of itself within the category that the very object was to provide pleasure, then no damages could be awarded for mere inconvenience unless physical discomfort was involved.

The award was set aside.The position is that however annoying and inconvenient it may be that the claimant's car has to be continually returned to the garage because of a fault in manufacturing, or however irritating it may be that a contractor starts to build the claimant's extension six weeks late, the claimant is unlikely to recover any general damages.On the other hand, if the contractor fails to build the extension to specification, the claimant may be able to argue that his pleasure has been reduced (see Ruxley Electronics and Construction Limited v Forsyth [1996] AC 344 HL where £2,500 damages were awarded for loss of amenity).Commercial contract? Forget damages for inconvenienceIn a contract which is essentially commercial in nature, even though a major objective is to avoid distress, worry and upset, damages are unlikely to be awarded under this heading unless there is some physical discomfort.

Wh ere a builder causes physical discomfort (for example, through exposure to the elements or from damp), damages may be awarded.In Watts v Morrow, a surveyor had wrongly stated that the house the claimants were buying was in good condition; but in fact substantial building works had to be carried out.

Although living in the house during them was unpleasant, no damages were awarded in the absence of physical discomfort because the contract was essentially commercial.Likewise, a solicitor advising incorrectly over a conveyancing matter is unlikely to be subject of an award for such damages (Hayes v James and Charles Dodd [1990] 2 All 815 CA) although when advising on matrimonial cases the position may be different (see Dickinson v Jones Alexander & Co [1993] 2 FLR 521 where a firm which made a mess of its client's divorce, causing her distress, was ordered to pay £5,000 under this heading).

The nature of the work appears to be significant, with a distinction drawn between personal and property matters.How much?It is useful to keep in mind the quantum of damages awarded for personal injuries.

Awards are modest and every case will have its own facts.

There are relatively few reported cases because most are small claims.In holiday cases, the court has normally to consider three heads of damages: diminution in the value of the holiday; any actual losses suffered; and the distress element.

For a seriously spoilt holiday, apart from a refund of what may well be most of the cost of the holiday, damages for distress of perhaps £500 per week might be appropriate.In Clarke v Airtours [1995] 4 CL 133, a self-catering apartment was infested with cockroaches and the grounds littered with rubbish: £800 was awarded by the circuit judge for distress for a two-week holiday.

The more expensive the holiday, the greater the distress which may be caused, particularly if the holiday marks some special occasion.In wedding cases, damages may be awarded for failures of photographers, wedding cars, caterers, and dressmakers.

But even for a spoiled wedding day, damages are unlikely to exceed the small claims limit and for individual failures, such as an ill-fitting bride's dress, the damages will not usually exceed £1,000.

Remember that a whiplash injury causing pain for a couple of years may only produce £4,000 or so damages and some comparison will be made in judicial minds.Is there a claim in tort?In tort there has been a greater readiness to extend the types of loss which may be recovered, perhaps because there is a greater likelihood of the defendant being insured.

If recovery for a loss looks unlikely in contract it may be worth considering whether a claim arises in tort.

However, whether compensation can be awarded for distress for a tort depends to some extent on its nature.

It is well established that in the torts of false imprisonment, assault, nuisance and other wrongs associated with occupation of property, distress damages can be awarded.

Damages for false arrest and wrongful imprisonment can be substantial -- as can those for defamation, even if no physical loss actually arises.In negligence, general damages have to relate to a recognised physical or psychological injury and the general inconvenience in road traffic cases of having to deal with garages, solicitors, insurance companies and the like will not attract an award (see Taylor v Browne [1995] CLY 1842).However, loss of use is recognised as a head of damage and the inconvenience of being without a car for any period of time will attract damages in a case where there is significant inconvenience.

The amount will relate to the extent of the inconvenience, but awards of £40 to £100 per week are within the normal range.