Contract B Flashcards
A contractual term is a condition if ‘it is an an essential element in the contract’ for which the other person would have required ‘strict or substantial performance’.
Tramways Advertising v Luna Park (NSW) Ltd (1938) NSWCA
Advertisement - min 8 hours/day - average 8 hours/day.
A term will be intermediate if it can be breached in a variety of ways. It will justify termination if it ‘denies substantially the whole benefit under the contract’.
Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd [1962] EWCA
“Seaworthiness” - intermediate term - multiple ways breachable.
A contract is repudiated when one parties indicates an intention not to be bound by its terms.
Carr v JA Berriman Pty Ltd (1953) HCA
Repudiation - lock out - bought steel from third party.
An accumulation of small breaches can amount to a repudiation.
Progressive Mailling House Pty Ltd v Tabali Pty Ltd (1985) HCA
Terse relations - rent, maintainence, sublease - cumulative effect.
In installment contracts, it may be repudiation if there is a sufficient % breached and liklihood of repeat.
Maple Flock Co v Universal Furniture Products (Wembley) (1934) 1 KB 148
Furniture stuffing - 100 tonnes - only one with excesse chlorine.
A bone fide belief you are performing according to the contract is not termination (at least prior to being put on notice).
DTR Nominees v Mona Homes [1978] HCA
Subdivision rights - mistaken interepretation - not explained.
What is anticipatory breach?
Foresee inevitable breach the contract -non-breaching party accepts - sues for damages and/or terminate.
If time is of the essence, strict performance is required and failure to comply allows termination.
Union Eagle Ltd v Golden Achievement Ltd [1997] UKPC
10 minutes late to settle - lost deposit - ‘certainty’.
Even if time is not of the essence, a delay can be so extensive as to amount to repudiation if shows unwillingness to be bound.
Laurinda v Capalaba Park Shopping Centre (1989) HCA
Registration of lease - 9 months delay - inadequate excuses.
Where time is not of the essence, the party not in default may give a notice fixing a reasonable date for completion and making that time the essence of the contract.
Louinder v Leis [1982] HCA
Buyer impatient - premature notice - validity of notice discussed.
Can you complete the time not of the essence timeline?
What are the two requirements for a valid election to affirm?
Has the party elected by unequivocal words or conduct?
Did the party have knowledge of the necessary facts that imply that an election was made?
Knowledge of the necessary facts to support an election need only be the material facts, not their legal conclusion.
Sargent v ASL Developments (1974) HCA
No planning certificate - legal advice 32 months later - too late.
Providing a period of grace while “reserving all rights” is not unequivical conduct capable of forming an election.
Tropical Traders Ltd v Goonan (1964) HCA
Struggling to pay - grace period - rights reserved.
To terminate, a party must be ready, willing and able to perform (unless anticipatory breach makes their performance useless).
Foran v Wight (1989) HCA
Seller could not complete - buyer forwent fiannce - allowable.
If you affirm a contract, it keeps it on foot for both parties.
Bowes v Chaleyer (1923) HCA
Buyer repudiated - seller continued to import - affirmed - could be sued for breach of import conditions.
You can be estopped from terminating if the other party relies on your representation to their detriment.
Legione v Hateley (1983) HCA
Obiter only - “that should be ok” not a clear representation.
You may be prevented from terminating an agreement due to the defaulting party claiming relief against forfeiture where there is unconsciousability, a minor breach and no fault on their part.
Tanwar Enterprises v Cauchi (2003) HCA
Buyer 1 day late with finance - patchy history - not exceptional.
As much as money can, put the aggrieved party in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed.
Robinson v Harman (1848) per Parke B.
Reliance based damages will be awared in instances where you cannot prove your expectation loss.
McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission (1951) HCA
Non-existant oil tanker - expectation uncertain - reliance.
Damages can be awarded even if the plaintiff only lost a chance of receiving a benefit.
Howe v Teefy (1927) NSWSC
Racehorse wrongly repossessed - lost chance - compensable.
In assessing causation, courts must use their common sense to decide whether there is an NAI.
Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation (1987) NSWCA
Auditor negligence - company traded out - property crash.
What is the two stage test for remoteness from Hadley v Baxendale (1848)?
The plaintiff will only be liable:
a) for losses arising naturally; or b) losses actually contemplated by the parties.
If you take reasonable steps to mitigate and it increases your loss, can you claim the additional loss?
Yes.
You must take reasonable steps to mitigate your loss, and it is no excuse that you are impecunious.
Burns v MAN Automtive (1986) HCA
Defective engine - no money to repair - operated at a loss.
At common law, contributory negligence is not a defence to breach of contract.
(Apportionment does not apply unless specifically stated or legislated.)
Astley v Austrust Limited (2000) HCA
Trust liability - negligent advice - s 25, 26 Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic).
Loss of bargain damages are not available when you terminate due to a naked contractual right.
Shevill v Builders Licensing Board (1982) HCA
Covenant to pay the rent - failed essentiality test - not condition.
Who said “it has been truly said that the assessment of damages in contract and tort is a pragmatic subject…which does not lend itself to hard and fast rules”?
Deane J in Commonwealth v Amann (1991) HCA.
Wrongful termination - wasted expenditure - chance of renewal.
The general rule is damages will be assessed at the date of breach, but is flexible if necessary to provide adequate compensation.
Johnson v Perez (1988) HCA
Injured plaintiff - sued solictors - when is claim assessed?
Loss of a chance damages are awarded in contract.
AND
If court acecpts there is a loss, difficulty in assessment is no barrier.
Chaplin v Hicks [1911] 2 KB 786
Beauty contest - inadequte notice of interview - lost chance.
Non-economic loss is recoverable if there is physical inconvenience.
Hobbs v London & South Western Railway Co (1875)
Train stopped early - walked 4-5 miles home.
Non-economic loss is recoverable for physical injury.
Godley v Perry [1960] 1 WLR 9
Toy catapult - malfunctioned - injured plaintiff’s eye.
Generally damages are not recoverable for disappointment and injured feelings.
Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd [1909] UKHOL
Manager in Calcutta - replaced - home to England in humiliation.
Non-economic loss is recoverable for disappointment if the contract was to provide enjoyment and freedom from disappointment.
Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon (1993) HCA
Cruise ship - holiday - sank due to negligence.
Rectification costs are the normal measure of costs.
Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) HCA
House - defective foundations - instablity - demolish and rebuild.
Rectification costs will not be awarded if costs are unreasonable.
Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth [1995]
Pool - 9 inches too shallow - cost of demolishing excessive.
Damages are available for loss of the use of money (i.e. additional borrowing costs, or costs of lost investment opportunity).
Hungerfords v Walker (1989) HCA
Accountants negligent - overpayed tax - loss of opportunity.
The High Court has observed, a proper understanding of the doctrine requires ‘more than a brief backward glance’.
Andrews v ANZ [2012] HCA
Bank fees case - secondary obligation (no breach) - penalty.
A liquidated damages clause will be a penalty if it is extravagant and unconscionable compared with the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach.
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd [1915] UKHOL
Resale price management - now illegal - retailer in breach.
Why is it beneficial to draft breach of contract claims as absolute breaches, rather than failure to take reasonable care?
Because it can circumvent:
- the potential defences of contributory negligence (Part V Wrongs Act Vic); and
- proportionate liability (a failure to take reasonable care).
Damages will be an inadequate remedy, allowing specific performance, if there is no substitute for performance available on the market.
Dougan v Ley (1946) HCA
Taxi sale - limited number - each unique - damages inadequate.
Damages will be an inadequate remedy, allowing specific performance, if damages are unavailable.
JC Williamson Ltd v Mulholland (1931) HCA
Theatre lolly store - unenforcable licence - damages unavailable.
Damages will be inadequate, allowing specific performance, where there is an exclusivity arrangement.
Curro v Beyond Productions Pty Ltd (1993) NSWSC
TV presenter - moved to Ch 9 - exclusivity not compensible.
Exemplary or punitive damages are not recoverable as part of a damages award for breach of contract.
Butler v Fairclough (1917) per Griffith CJ.
“A breach of contract may be innocent, even accidental or unconscious … Or it may be wilful…malicious and committed with the express intention of injuring the other party. But the measure of damages is not affected by any such considerations…”
Damages awarded as a substitute for specific performance, but denied on a discretionary ground.
Equitable damages or ‘Lord Cairn’ Act’ damages - s 38 Supreme Court Act (Vic).
Which 2007 High Court case confirmed the adoption of Hong Kong Fir Shipping into Australian law (over Kirby J’s dissent)?
Koompahtoo v Sanpine [2007] HCA
Aboriginal land - JV to develop - failure to keep records.
Misleading and deceptive conduct damages are not reducable for contributory negligence
“That two things contributed does not stop one being a cause.”
Henville v Walker [2001] HCA
Property developer - demand misrepresented - also miscaluclated costs.
The purpose of the inquiry must be known to extract from the legal cause from the whole complex of antecedent conditions of an event.
I & L Securities v HTW [2002] HCA
Mortgage default - house overvalued - bank no due diligence on borrower.
The advantage of claiming an action for debt is if you have a commercial reason you can ignore the repudiation, continue to perform and sue for debt. There is no need to mitigate your loss.
White and Carter (Councils) v McGregor [1961] UKHL
Rubbish bin advertising - attempted cancellation - refused to cancel and sued for debt.
For action for debt purposes, some contracts are divisible.
Steele v Tardiani (1946) HCA
Cutting firewood - ‘indefinitely divisible’ .
Under s.54 Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) when an item is rented or hired, the debt on rent accrues day to day.
See eg Nemeth v Bayswater Road Pty Ltd [1988] QSC
Hire aircraft - one month rental - crashed - debt for 16 days due.