School of Law

Contact Details

Professor Roger Halson's Publications


  • Halson R, Contract Law (Pearson Education, 2013)

    Offering a modern, engaging account of all aspects of contract law, this new edition provides a clear understanding of the legal principles which underpin the contractual process.

  • Grubb A, Furmston M, Bradgate R, Brownsword R, Carter JW, Clarke M, Halson R, MacDonald E, Tolhurst GJ, The Law of Contract, 4th (Butterworths, 2010)

  • Jowitt WAJ, Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law (Sweet and Maxwell, 2010)

  • Halson D, Contract Law, Butterworths Common Law Series, 3rd ([], 2007)

  • Halson D, Contract Law, Butterworths Common Law Series, 2nd (Butterworths, 2003)

  • Halson D, Contract Law, Butterworths Common Law Series, 2nd Edition ([], 2003)

  • Harris D, Campbell ID, Halson DR, Remedies in Contract and Tort (Butterworths, 2002), xlviii,634p

  • Halson DR, Contract Law (Pearson Education Ltd, 2001), liv,538p

Journal articles

  • Halson DR, ‘The Recovery of Damages for Non-Pecuniary Loss in the United Kingdom: A Critique and Proposal for a New Structure Integrating Recovery in Contract and Tort’, Chinese Journal of Comparative Law, 3.2 (2015), 245-267
    DOI: 10.1093/cjcl/cxv008, Repository URL:

    This paper seeks to give an integrated and critical account of the availability of damages for non-pecuniary loss in England and Wales across contract and tort. In the past the availability of such damages in the law of obligations has been addressed in the context of separate discussions of available remedies for either breach of contract or the commission of a tort. The proposal in this paper is structured around a variation of a six fold classification which has received recent endorsement by the English Court of Appeal in the important and remarkable, but mostly unnoticed, case of Simmons v Castle (2012).

  • Campbell D, Halson DR, ‘Expectation and Reliance: One Principle or Two?’, Journal of Contract Law, 32.3 (2015), 231-243
    Repository URL:

    Elementary mathematics is used in this paper to clarify the ‘losing contract problem’ which continues to confuse courts addressing the quantification of damages for breach of contract. The distinction between gross receipts and net profits is analysed in a way which allows the coherent identification of the claimant’s expectation in any contract, be it a profitable, break-even or losing contract.

  • Halson DR, ‘A Common Lawyer's Perspective on Contract Codes’, Jersey and Guernsey Law Review, 15.2 (2011)
    Repository URL:

    Legal ‘codes’ are usually associated with civilian, as opposed to common law, systems of law. As a result, discussions of ‘codification’ fail to address concerns and issues particular to common law systems jurisdictions. This is the more surprising when the very word of codification was coined two hundred years ago by a distinguished English philosopher and legal commentator and there is a rich history of codification projects in common law jurisdictions. This article presents a common lawyer’s perspective on contract codes. First it seeks to stabilize and define the concept of codification and then develops a critique of codification which draws broadly upon both current economic arguments and lessons from the past. It concludes by suggesting some preconditions that should be satisfied before any codification, such as the codification of the law of contract proposed by the Jersey Law Commission, should be enacted.

  • Halson DR, ‘Unused Earning Capacity and the case of the Under Occupied Artist’, Journal of Professional Negligence, 25 (2009), 107

  • Halson D, ‘Time Charters, Damages and Remoteness’, Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 2008, 119-119

  • Halson D, Pearce D, ‘Damages for Breach of Contract: Compensation, Restitution and Vindication’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 28 (2008), 73-98
    Repository URL:

  • Halson DR, ‘Negotiation, Modification and the Structure of Contract Textbooks’, Canterbury Law Review, 11 (2005), 163-184

  • Halson D, ‘The Law of Contract and the Textbook Tradition’, Canterbury Law Review 2005, 163-184

  • Halson D, ‘Claims for Non-POecuniary Loss in Employment Tribunals following Johnson v Unisys’, Industrial Law Journal 2003, 214-217

  • Halson DR, ‘Opportunism, Economic Duress and Contractual Modifications’, The Law Quarterly Review, 107 (1991), pp.649-678


  • Halson DR, ‘Specific Performance’, in Halsbury’s Laws of England, 5th ed. (London: Lexis Nexis, 2013), 95, 261-379

  • Halson DR, ‘Neglected Insights into Agreed Remedies’, in The Future of Relational Contract Law, ed. by Campbell ID, Mulcahy L and Wheeler S (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013)

  • Halson DR, Campbell D, ‘Harmonization and its Discontents: The Transaction Costs Argument for the European Contract Code:Some Observations on the Commission's Green Paper’, in Transformation of European Private Law: Harmonisation, Consolidation or Chaos?, ed. by Kenny M and Devenney J (Cambridge University Press, 2013)

    This chapter challenges the theory of, and the evidence for the argument upon which the EU has supported the need for a European Contract Code.

  • Halson DR, ‘Remedies for Breach of Contract’, in The Law of Contract, ed. by Furmston M, Butterworths Common Law Series (Butterworths, 2007), 1573-1775

  • Halson DR, Campbell ID, ‘The Irrelevance of the Performance Interest: A Comparative Analysis of 'Keep Open' Covenants in England and Scotland’, in Commercial Contracts: A Transatlantic Perspective, ed. by Di Matteo L and others (Cambridge University Press, [n.d.])

Internet publications

  • Pearce D, Halson DR, Damages for Breach of Contract: Compensation, Restitution, and Vindication, ([], 2007)

    Author URL []

    In this article we examine the role which vindication plays in contract damages. Vindication describes the making good of a right by the award of an adequate remedy. We argue that, while the primary purpose of compensation is to provide an indemnity for loss, an award of compensatory damages will nevertheless generally vindicate the right to performance of the contract. We go on to consider a distinct measure of damages, vindicatory damages. These, we argue, are neither compensatory nor restitutionary, neither loss-based nor gain-based: they are a rights-based remedy. We then identify various situations in which the courts may be seen to have awarded what are, in substance, vindicatory damages. We conclude by considering the benefits which may follow from recognition of the availability of vindicatory damages as a contract remedy.

© Copyright Leeds 2018