What is the third principle in the context of a real estate transaction?

The parties did not address the third principle in Folland v. Reardon. Moreover, the operation of that principle is not altogether clear from the foregoing passages in that decision. To the extent that it removes the need for a plaintiff to establish a hypothetical fact that would have turned on the actions of a third party, it is not applicable in this proceeding. To the extent that it would exclude a gain dependent upon the plaintiff rather than upon a third party, I think it must be intended to apply only if the gain is dependent entirely upon the plaintiff. In the present circumstances, as described below, the gain would be principally dependent upon the realities of the market for retail shopping centres and tenants, even if the plaintiff’s involvement would have been necessary to achieve the gain. I have therefore proceeded on the basis that this requirement is also satisfied in the circumstances of this action.