body: [I scanned both pages](https://i.stack.imgur.com/opNrB.jpg). Mindy Chen-Wishart. [*Contract Law* (2018 6 edn)](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Contract-Law-Mindy-Chen-Wishart/dp/0198806353/ref=dp_ob_title_bk). p 538. 
  
  
  
  > 
  > 5. Paradoxically, *Wrotham Park* damages protect the claimant’s performance interest by
  >  enforcing a sale of the claimant’s right.
  > 
  > 
  > 
  
  
  1. How do "*Wrotham Park* damages protect the claimant’s performance interest by
  enforcing a sale of the claimant’s right"?
  2. Why's this paradoxical?
  
  
  [*Anson's Law of Contract* (2016 30 ed)](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Ansons-Law-Contract-Jack-Beatson/dp/0198734786/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=ZW82SGPZDB8D0GKSVMV4).
  
  
  
  > 
  >       Having said that, one can perhaps defend the view that the damages in *Wrotham
  >  Park* were compensatory on the basis that it was the loss of the opportunity to sell
  >  the right in the future that was being compensated; or that the claimant was being
  >  compensated for a non- pecuniary loss (ie the claimant valued the right so much— to
  >  protect the views over that land— that it would not have been willing to sell it).78
  > 
  > 
  > 78See above pp 566– 8.
  > 
  > 
  > 
  
  
  
title: Why's it paradoxical that Wrotham Park damages protect the claimant’s performance interest by enforcing a sale of the claimant’s right?