Breach and Termination Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

Decro‐Wall International SA v. Practitioners in Marketing Ltd. (CA 1971) Principle

A
  • set out the test for fundamental breach
  • must deprive the injured party a substantial part of the benefit he is getting under the contract
  • otherwise it would be unfair to hold the other accountable
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Heyman v Darwins Ltd [1942] Facts

A

• arbitration clause survived termination
• if contract indicates that the parties want the clause to survive, they will
• between manufacurers and distributors
• concerning steel products
• term that any dispute should go to arbritation
• R repudiated the contract
o Tried to go to the courts to terminate the contract and collect damages
• C argued that they needed to go to arbitration first under the clause
• Held:
o Dispute fell under the arbitration clause
o That’s where the dispute should be regulated
o Followed in other arbitration cases
o Relates to any clause that is meant to survive beyond termination of the contract

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Heyman v Darwins Ltd [1942] Principle

A
  • arbitration clause survived termination

* if contract indicates that the parties want the clause to survive, they will

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Johnson v Agnew [1980] Facts

A

• A was buying J’s farm
• Contract was ready, A did not do anything
• J tried to get specific performance to force A to fulfill the contract that she made
• Order for specific performance was not made until a year after the performance was supposed to occur
• In the meantime, J’s mortgage company had won an order for possession to sell the property (3rd party now involved)
• J said there is not point to make A buy the property
• J was bankrupt
• Mortgagees sold the property for lees than the mortgage
• J tried to sue A for the purchase price minus what the mortgagee sold the property for
• Held:
o J should receive damages
o Breach of a contract for sale
o Should be assessed at the date when the contract was lost
o Continuing repudiatory conduct form A, J could terminate

Rules from this case: (Below slide)
• 1) Termination for breach of contract is perspective (look forward, not backwards)
• Not like rescission
• 2) if you are trying to get specific performance, does not give up right to end the contract when he initially accepts D’s repudiatroy breach. (it is ongoing)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Johnson v Agnew [1980] Principle

A

o Continuing repudiatory conduct form A, J could terminate

4 Rules:
• 1) Termination for breach of contract is “prospective”, not “retrospective”

• 2) A claimant for specific performance does not forfeit his right to terminate the contract by accepting a defendant’s repudiatory breach

• 3) When a specific performance decree is made, a court oversees performance, and it has the sole jurisdiction to determine whether that obligation can be discharged
o Makes it rare to happen
o Court does not like to get involved

• 4) Common law damages are assessed at the date of the breach of the contract, though the court may fix another date if justice requires

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Johnson v Agnew [1980] 4 Rules for continuing repudiatory breach?

A
  • 1) Termination for breach of contract is “prospective”, not “retrospective”
  • 2) A claimant for specific performance does not forfeit his right to terminate the contract by accepting a defendant’s repudiatory breach

• 3) When a specific performance decree is made, a court oversees performance, and it has the sole jurisdiction to determine whether that obligation can be discharged
o Makes it rare to happen
o Court does not like to get involved

• 4) Common law damages are assessed at the date of the breach of the contract, though the court may fix another date if justice requires

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Stocznia Gdanska S.A. v Latvian Shipping Co [1997] Facts

A

• contracted to build some ships
• contract was rescinded after part performance
• issue: breach was ongoing, could they choose to terminate the contract?
• Held:
o Yes
o Can choose to terminate
o Even if there is initial affirmation because breach is continuing

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Stocznia Gdanska S.A. v Latvian Shipping Co [1997] Principle

A

Innocent party can choose to terminate contract if breach is continuing, even if initially chose to affirm the breach

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

London Borough of Waltham Forest v Omilaju [2004] EWCA Civ 1493, [2005] Facts

A

• Employee (O) worked for L for 9 years until 2001
• Between 1998- 2001, he issued a number of complaints against the council
• Alleged a number of different things
• All claims were dismissed
• L refused to pay his serious while he was absent from work in 2001, when he was at the hearings for all of these complaints
• He could of applied for special leave, but didn’t
• Resigned in 2001
• Said failure to pay his salary was the last straw of acts against him
• Held:
o Claim dismissed
o Reasonable not to pay because he was not working and could of applied for leave
o Last straw incident is possible to be enough for a constructive breach, but not in this case
o Principle
• Can be a number of smaller breaches, but the last straw breach can be the one that puts it over the edge

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

London Borough of Waltham Forest v Omilaju [2004] EWCA Civ 1493, [2005] Principle

A

“law straw” in a series of acts

• Can be a number of smaller breaches, but the last straw breach can be the one that puts it over the edge

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Bentsen v Taylor [1893] Facts

A
  • involved a charter party
  • contract term that vessel was supposed to leave in March, didn’t leave until April
  • it was a condition
  • Breach was affirmed by innocent party
  • Once you makes the decision, that is final, unless it is an ongoing breach
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Bentsen v Taylor [1893] Principle

A

Innocent party must choose between affirmation and termination

Breach was affirmed by innocent party
• Once you makes the decision, that is final, unless it is an ongoing breach

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Vitol SA v Norelf Ltd [1996] Facts

A

• N contracted to sell propane to V
• Propane of market was rough
• Cargo was shipped from US, should of left before March 7
• On March 8, it was still being loaded
• V sent telex to N repudiating the contract
• Ship was still loaded and sailed
• Market for propane dropped
• N sold propane at a lost
• Neither party did anything to affirm the contract
• N sued for damages for breach
• Held:
o Telex was an anticipatory breach
o It is possible that doing nothing can constitute acceptance of a breach
• It is fact specific
o We don’t know who won, they settled in arbitration
o Silence can amount to acceptance of repudiatory breach
• It is fact specific
• Case by case

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Vitol SA v Norelf Ltd [1996] Principle

A

Party wishing to terminate must notify party in breach that he is doing so


o Silence can amount to acceptance of repudiatory breach
• It is fact specific
• Case by case

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

The Kanchenjunga [1990] Facts

A
•	Ship under charter
•	Supposed to go to certain ports
•	One port was really dangerous, and when it got there it was really dangerous situation so they left
•	Issue: was ship owner liable for leaving?
•	Held:
o	No
o	Terms allowed him to do that 
o	Has the right to affirm or waive
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

The Kanchenjunga [1990] Principle

A

waiving the right to terminate after a serious breach

o Has the right to affirm or waive

17
Q

The Post Chaser [1982] Facts

A

• Sale of palm oil
• Seller sold to company B, who sold to C
• Sellers was supposed to give notice when the ship had sailed as soon as possible
• Sellers did not tell them until a month later
• Breached condition
• B had right to reject the shipment, but said nothing
• Same day B received notice, they told C
• 10 days later, B requested that Sellers send documents directly to C
• C then rejected the shipments
• 2 days later, B rejected the shipment
• Sellers had to sell on open market, got a lot less money
• Sued for the difference
• Issue: did B affirm the contract
• Held:
o Nothing inequitable to allow buyers to assert their legal rights
o No problem in rejecting the goods

18
Q

The Post Chaser [1982] Principle

A

waiving the right to terminate after a serious breach

19
Q

Peyman v Lanjani [1985] Facts

A
•	leasehold interest in a property 
•	repudiatory breach by seller
•	buyer affirmed 
•	buyer did not know about his right to terminate
•	Held:
o	Affirmation was not successful 
o	Must know right
20
Q

Peyman v Lanjani [1985] Principle

A

Plaintiff must know he has the right to rescind in order to affirm the contract

21
Q

Evans Marshall v Bertola [1973] Facts

A

• 3 parties
• clause that 2 parties had to go to Spain to resolve disputes
• there were 2 actions, 1 in UK other in Spain
• Held:
o Should only have one action
o Sent to Spain
o If you affirm the contract, you are subject to the terms

22
Q

Evans Marshall v Bertola [1973] Principle

A

o If you affirm the contract, you are subject to the terms

23
Q

White & Carter (Councils) v Macgregor [1962] Facts

A

• W was an advertising contractor
• W agreed with M. a garage proprietor, to display advertisements for his garage for 3 years
• On the same day, M refused to perform the agreement and requested W to cancel the contract
• W refused, and elected to treat the contract as still continuing
• W made no effort to re-let the space and displayed advertisements as agreed
• W sued for the full amount due
• M argued that since he renounced the contract before anything had occurred under it, W was not entitled to carry out the agreement and sue for the price. W was entitled only to damages.
• Held:
o Argument rejected
o W was entitled to the full contract sum
o W was not obliged to accept the breach of contract
o Adverts were already on the bins
• Would take more effort
o Innocent party can insist on performance n cooperation is not needed

24
Q

White & Carter (Councils) v Macgregor [1962] Principle

A

• Can affirm a contract, can carry on and get paid for it

  • Did not need cooperation of the breaching party to continue in this case

o Innocent party can insist on performance n cooperation is not needed

25
Q

Hounslow LBC v Twickenham Garden [1971] Facts

A

• H entered into a building contract with T
• T was to carry out construction work on the land owned by H
• As part of the contract, H granted T a license to enter the site to carry out work
• H was unhappy about how slow T was going and wanted to terminate the contract
• T refused to accept that H could do this
• H attempted to obtain an injunction to force T to leave the site
• Held:
o Injunction refused
o Equity will not assist a man to break his contract
o No provision to prevent them from entering the land

26
Q

Hounslow LBC v Twickenham Garden [1971] Principle

A

If the cooperation of the breaching party is required, then White & Carter case does not apply

• Innocent has to have a legitimate interest to carry on the contract

o Equity will not assist a man to break his contract
o No provision to prevent them from entering the land