body: I don't grok the emboldened hypothetical. I simplified the math in the title; dividing prices by 1000 doesn't change factual pattern. 
  
  
  If car = 3K if of the age repesented, then Alex got a bargain of 500 = (3 – 2.5)K.
  
  
  1. Thus why would Alex get "an award of £800 (£3,000 less the £2,200 value of the car received)"? Alex wouldn't get anything!
  2. What's his "contractual loss of bargain"? Why give him it "rather than returning each party to their starting positions"?
  
  
  [Prof Richard Taylor](https://www.uclan.ac.uk/staff_profiles/richard-taylor.php), [Damian Taylor](https://www.slaughterandmay.com/who-we-are/partners/damian-taylor/). [*Contract Law Directions* (6 edn, 2019)](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Contract-Law-Directions-Richard-Taylor/dp/0198836597/ref=dp_ob_title_bk). p 189. All sections refer to [Misrepresentation Act 1967](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misrepresentation_Act_1967).
  
  
  
  > 
  > ### Damages in lieu of rescission
  > 
  > 
  > Alex buys a car from Phillippa for £2,500, but due to a misrepresentation about the car’s
  >  age, the car is only worth £2,200. If Alex rescinded, he would return to Phillippa the
  >  car worth £2,200 and get his £2,500 back from Phillippa. So he has his £2,500 back in
  >  his hands.
  > 
  > 
  > If the court decides to award damages in lieu of rescission under s.2(2), such damages
  >  would have to achieve the same result. Since no rescission is being ordered, Alex keeps
  >  the car worth £2,200 so he needs another £300 to bring him up to the £2,500 he could
  >  have got under rescission. What these damages should not cover, however, is any other
  >  items of loss, for example suppose Alex has purchased £100 of accessories which only
  >  fit models of the year he thought he was purchasing and which are now useless to him.
  >  Such losses would have been left equally uncompensated if rescission plus indemnity
  >  had been awarded and they can only be recovered if Alex establishes some other right
  >  to damages, for example under s.2(1), which is considered later. **[1.] Similarly, if the car
  >  would have been worth £3,000 if of the age represented, there should be no question
  >  of getting an award of £800** (£3,000 less the £2,200 value of the car received) since that
  >  would be to give him **[2.]¸his contractual loss of bargain rather than returning each party to
  >  their starting positions**. To gain such loss of bargain damages, Alex would have to prove
  >  that the age of the car was a term, not just a representation and that there was therefore
  >  a breach of contract.
  > 
  > 
  > 
  
  
  
title: If you paid $2.5 for a car that's worth $3 if of the age represented, why would you get (1) an award or (2) loss of bargain damages?