Contract Law - Discharge of the Contract - Week 6 Flashcards
Discharge by Performance
General rule is that the complete performance is required
For example;
Fred agrees to sell his car to Bert in exchange for a cash price
When fred has given the car to Bert and Bert has paid Fred, the contract is at an end as they have completed their obligations → performed the contract
Sometimes things go wrong → Fred could give the car to Bert and Bert may refuse to pay the cash
If a party fails to complete their side of the bargain, they may be in breach of contract
In the event of a breach, the other party may be entitled to withhold payment
What’s the general rule?
A contract can only be discharged through complete performance → all the obligations under the contract.
This is the ideal method of discharge as everyone has done what they’ve agreed
If the parties have fulfilled their obligation, the contract has come to an end by performance → the parties have completed all their obligations under the contract
It would be said that they have the exact and complete performance of the obligations in the contract
Cutter v Powell
The rule on complete performance can create an unfair result
The case of Cutter v Powell shows the unfairness of the rule
Cutter v Powell:
Cutter was a crew member on a ship with wages due on competition of a voyage. He died 19 days before the journey ended and his widow was refused the unpaid wages as he hadn’t fully performed the contract
What are the exceptions?
1) Divisible Contracts
2) Prevention of Performance by Other Party
3) Acceptance of Part Performance
4) Substantial Performance
Exception 1 - Divisible Contracts
Cutter is an example of the entire contract
Nothing short of complete performance would do
It would’ve been better for the widow if the contract was divisible → payment made every week or at specific points on the journey
In that case she would’ve been entitled to some of her husband’s wages
Contracts of employment are an example of divisible contracts
Ritchie v Atkinson (1808)
A contract stated that goods would be shipped at a cost of £5 per tonne.
Only part of the agreed cargo was shipped and the wonder claimed that as the contract hadn’t been fully performed, they were released from payment
It was held that the contact was divisible.
The contract could be divided into separate parts as the agreement was to pay per tonne
Payment owed for each tonne of the cargo that had been carried
Extra Info
Some contracts are divisible into parts and payment becomes due at various stages of performance
Contracts of employment are an example of divisible contracts
Employees are paid weekly or monthly as opposed to when they leave their employment even when they have entered into a fixed term contract of employment
Whether a contract is an entire contract or a divisible contract depends on the intentions of the parties and the express and implied terms of the contract
Exception 2 - Prevention of Performance by Other Party
A party will be in breach if they prevent the other party from fulfilling their contractual obligations
Planche v Colburn (1831)
The claimant was asked to write a book by the defendant with payment due on completion
The claimant wrote half the book when the defendant changed his mind and asked him to stop
The claimant was entitled to part payment for partly performing his contract
Exception 3 - Acceptance of Part Performance
Where a contract isn’t divisible and is an entire contact, it may be possible to show that the other party has voluntarily accepted partial performance
A party can choose to accept a party performed contract
If a party chooses to accept part performance, they’ll pay for the part of the contract completed
For example, if the contract was 50% performed than 50% payment would be due
You order 10 cartons of orange juice but only 5 arrive → you reject all 5 or keep 5 and pay for just 5
The party accepting part performance → accepting the 5 cartons → must have a genuine choice over whether to accept or reject the part performance
Sumpter v Hedges (1898)
Claimant contracted to build a barn for the defendant but then abandoned the project half way through
Held the defendant didn’t have to pay for part performance as the defendant didn’t have a choice but to accept part performance
Defendant only had to pay fo materials the claimant had left behind and used by the defendant to complete the building (he did have a choice whether to use materials left behind so had to pay a reasonable sum for them)
Exception 4 - Substantial Performance
Occurs when someone substantially performs their contract → have done the bulk of what they’ve agreed to do but some minor parts remain undone
Injured party had to pay what is due under the contract with a minor discount to cover the incomplete performance
The court must decide if there’s been substantial performance and this will change with the facts of eac case
Bolton v Mahadeva (1972)
The claimant entered into a contract with the defendant to install a central heating system for £560
Central heating was defective and required substantial work to repair the defects, costing £174
Held that the cost to repair the central heating was too great a proportion of the original cost to accept the contract had been substantially performed
Claimant couldn’t recover any payment for the work he’d done
Hoenig v Isaacs (1952)
Contract to decorate and furnish a flat was held to be substantially performed as full performance only lacked repairs to a bookcase and replacement of a wardrobe door
The total contract cost was £750 and it was held a reduction of £55 to be made to cover the bookcase and wardrobe door
Discharge by Agreement
Occurs where parties agree not to perform the contract
New legally binding agreement so will need all the elements of a valid contract
Agreement to end a contract before it’s completed is a second contract between the parties and the second contract is binding on the parties provided all the necessary elements of a contract are present.
Discharge by Frustration
A contract becomes frustrated when somewhere between agreement and performance something outside the control of the parties makes performance impossible or futile
Therefore, contract has been discharged by frustration
Party can’t perform their side of the bargain through no fault of their own
Who has the onus of proof?
The onus is on the person claiming frustration to prove the event has prevented performance and frustrated the contract
Frustrating Events:
- Destruction or unavailability of the subject matter
- Death or illness of one of the parties
- Supervening illegality
- Government intervention
- The event to which the contract is based fails to occur
- Delay in performance
Destruction or Unavailability of the Subject Matter
A contract will be frustrated where the object of the contract becomes impossible because the subject matter of the contract has been destroyed or it isn’t possible to use it
Taylor v Caldwell (1863)
Caldwell agreed to rent a music hall for a series of concerts over four days from Taylor. After the contract was agreed but before the concerts had taken place, the music hall was destroyed by fire
It was held that performance of the contract was impossible → the contract was frustrated and both parties were released from their obligations
Gamerco SA v ICM/Fair Warning (Agency) Ltd (1995)
A contract was frustrated when a stadium hired for a rock concert became unsafe and it wasn’t possible to find an alternative venue in time
Death or Illness of one of the Contracting Parties
This is relevant in contract which can only be performed by a specified person
If that person becomes ill or passes away it might be that the contract is frustrated
In cases of illness, whether frustration exists depends on the length of the illness and the terms of the contract.
Contract for a one off solo performance is more likely to be frustrated than a long running play where the main actor is ill for one night
The length of the illness relative to the length of the contract is important and whether the essence of the contract is destroyed/threatened.
Condor v Barron Knights (1966)
A drummer was advised by his doctor to limit any performances to four nights a week
The contract was frustrated as the ability to only work for four nights was incompatible with the nature of the work → he may be required for weeks at a time for some events
Atwal v Rochester (2010)
Rochester, a builder, agreed to carry out building works for Atwal
Rochester was prevented from working due to surgery
Atwal had chose Rochester to do the work because of his low price and that he was known to the family
As Rochester could no longer carry out the work due to ill health the contract was frustrated