JUDGMENT

1. The learned Judge has gone wrong over this case. The language may be, to persons to whom it is not familiar, somewhat difficult to apply, and it is useful to have a complete knowledge of the whole Act before selecting one passage from a particular section, and construing that by itself. The learned Judge seems to think that the fact that the plaintiffs were able to put into the terms of a money sum, the compensation for the loss which they would probably suffer if they could not get the lease that they wanted, was in itself equivalent to saying that such sum was adequate compensation. It is quite dear that the plaintiffs did not say that. In fact, the plaintiffs really said just the reverse. They asked Co (specific performance, and it was only in the final alternative that they claimed a sum to recoup their loss as estimated by them as damages if their claim for specific performance was not allowed. But the plaintiffs were claiming what they were prima facie entitled to, namely, a lease of a particular shop, and there may be many reasons why they desire and are willing to pay for a particular shop, and why they are unable to do more than give a rough statement of the los