493.11 N 15/271: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Minister in China (MacMurray)
410. Your 861, December 6, 6 p.m. Department’s 393, November 30, [6 p.m.,] was only intended to cover the special case. Department assumed that full indemnity, including item for loss of use of property, had been asked by mission. In such case tacking of [on?] item for rent would amount to double indemnity for loss of use.
In the absence of the facts of a particular case the Department cannot lay down a definite rule for assessing damages due to the [Page 369] deprivation of the use and occupation of property which would include an item covering the rental value of the property. As a general proposition, where the claimants by reason of being deprived of their premises were unable to rent them or were compelled to pay rent for other premises, the money losses sustained on that account could properly be included in the claim as essential elements of damage due to loss of use and occupation. When premises have no rent status, but rental value is known or readily ascertainable and there exists no more practicable method for computing compensation for loss of use of premises, rental value may properly be employed in computation of damages.