D Flashcards

1
Q

Cutter v Powell (1795)

A

Judgment: As the contract was for the whole voyage, he had not performed his contract by dying part way through!

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

Re Moore and Co. Ltd and Landauer and Co’s Arbitration (1921)

A

Judgment: Total number of tinned peaches was correct, but the number of tins in each carton was incorrect so the goods did not correspond with the description in the contract.

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

Divisible contracts

A

Where a contract has separate parts, non-completion of one part is not a breach of the whole contract.

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

Ritchie v Atkinson (1808)

A

Judgment: The ship owner was entitled to be paid for the part of the cargo he had carried as the contract was divisible i.e. whole contract not breached.

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

Substantial performance

A

The doctrine of substantial performance may apply if a party has done substantially what was required under the contract.
If applicable, payment of the amount appropropriate to what has been done.
Often occurs in larger contracts where little things are not performed as exactly as expected.

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

Dakin and Co. v Lee (1916)

A

Judgment: Substantial performance applied as there were relatively minor defects in the builder’s work.

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

How is it decided what is substantial performance

A

Decided case by case as to what constitutes substantial performance.

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

See Hoenig v Isaacs (1952) -

A

Quantum meruit - as much as it is worth.

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

Bolton v Mahadeva (1972)

A

£170 repair for £560 worth of work deemed not to be substantial performance.

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

Prevention of full performance

A

If one party prevents the other from carrying out his contract, then the innocent party can claim to be paid on a quantum meruit basis.

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

Planche v Colburn

A

Judgment: An author was prevented from carrying out his contract so was paid on a quantum meruit basis.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Acceptance of part-performance

A

If one party has agreed the other party need not complete the entire contract then the contract must be paid for on a quantum meruit basis.
The consent must be:
A specific acknowledgement that the defaulting party is entitled to be paid for what has been completed so far;
agreement made without undue pressure.
If innocent party has no option but to take the benefit of the work done, not considered as consent to part-performance

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

Sumpter v Hedges (1898)

A

Judgement: The builder was not entitled to be paid for the work he had done so far as the customer had no alternative but to complete the work himself. He had not consented to the builder’s part performance.

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

The effect of a term as to time for performance

A

Courts regard time as a condition if:
the parties have expressly stated in the contract that time is of the essence of the contract i.e. timing critical for contract to be fulfilled as intended;
in the circumstances time for the completion of the contract is critical, or
one party has failed to perform on time and the other has insisted on a new date for completion of the contract (making time of the essence of the contract).
If none of the above apply, then the time for performance is treated as a warranty.

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

See Charles Rickards Ltd v Oppenheim (1950)

A

Judgment: The buyer of the Rolls-Royce was entitled to cancel the contract as time had been made of the essence and that term had not been complied with.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

The effect of a term as to time for performance

A

See Union Eagle Ltd v Golden Achievement Ltd (1997)
Judgment: The time for the completion of the contract had been specified as 5pm and time was expressly stated to be ‘of the essence’. The purchaser delivered the purchase price at 5.10pm and the seller was entitled to repudiate the contract.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Time and the Consumer Rights Act 2015

A

S52 - if contract does not expressly fix time for service to be performed, the contract is to be treated as including a term that the trader must perform the service within a reasonable time.
If a trader in breach of s52, the consumer has a right to a price reduction under s54. Refund could be anything up to full contract price.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Discharge by breach

A

Actual breach
Three sets of circumstances giving rise to a breach of contract:
renunciation by a party of his or her liabilities under it e.g. not paying a bill on the due date;
impossibility created by his/her own act e.g. closing a hairdresser’s business for holidays with appointments during that time;
total/partial failure of performance e.g. delivering defective goods.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Repudiatory breach

A

This occurs when a party commits a breach of contract that is sufficiently serious that it entitles the innocent party to treat the contract as terminated.
Can occur in three ways:
a breach of a condition;
a refusal to perform the contract;
a sufficiently serious breach of an innominate term i.e. a breach that would be considered to be a breach of a condition.
Outcome: Party not in breach can either terminate the contract and claim damages or continue the contract and claim damages.

20
Q

Anticipatory breach

A

Occurs when a party to a contract gives notice in advance to the other party that he or she will not be performing/completing contract.

Innocent party has a choice to either:
sue immediately for a breach of condition; or
wait for the time agreed for the performance of the contract and sue if performance does not take place then.
Outcome: innocent party can treat the contract as repudiated immediately and/or claim damages.

21
Q

See Hochester v de la Tour (1853)

A

Where one party communicates their intention not to perform the contract, the innocent party need not wait until the breach has occurred before bringing their claim. They may sue immediately or they can choose to continue with the contract and wait for the breach to occur.

22
Q

Geden Operations Ltd v Drybulk Handy Holdings Inc (Bulk Uruguay) (2014)

A

suggestion by one party that obligation will not be fulfilled and other party can subsequently come to a reasonable conclusion about intention can amount to a repudiation of contract.

23
Q

Frustration

A

when a party to a contract was prevented from keeping the promise because of an unforeseeable, intervening event, he or she would not be liable for a breach of contract.

24
Q

See Taylor v Caldwell (1863)

A

Judgment: The destruction of the music hall by fire was not the fault of either party so the contract was frustrated.

25
Q

Many contracts, particularly business ones, will often include a force majeure clause

A
  • excludes liability for the parties for delay in performance or the non-performance if there are extraordinary events.
26
Q

impossibility of performance

A
27
Q

See Jackson v Union Marine Insurance Co. Ltd (1874)

A

Judgment: The long delay in loading caused by the ship running aground amounted to frustration of the contract

28
Q

See Robinson v Davidson (1871)

A

Judgment: Illness of a person to perform personally can amount to frustration.

29
Q

Condor v The Baron Knights (1966) (coolest case name ever. Fact)

A

Judgment: An ill-drummer acting on medical advice can be sufficient for frustration of contract.

30
Q

The contract becoming illegal to perform

A

A change in the law can affect the legality of a contract.

31
Q

Denny, Mott and Dickson Ltd v James B Fraser and CO. Ltd (1944)

A

Judgment: Law was changed so that importing goods of that kind became illegal after the contract was made, frustrating the contract.

32
Q

See Re Shipton Anderson and Co. and Harrison Bros and Co. (1915)

A

Judgment: An outbreak of war frustrated the contract as the seller of grain had cargo intercepted by the Government.

33
Q

When frustration cannot apply

A
34
Q

Self-induced frustration

A

No frustration if the frustrating event within the control of a party.

35
Q

Maritime National Fish Ltd v Ocean Trawlers Ltd (1935)

A

Judgment: The choice of which boat to allocate a licence to amounted to self-induced frustration.

36
Q

Gamerco SA v ICM Fair Warning (Agency) Ltd and Missouri Storm Inc. (1995)

A

Judgment: The licence for the concert to take place in Athletico Madrid’s stadium, deemed unfit, was withdrawn by a third party and frustrated the contract.

37
Q

Radical change to original contract

A

A radical change of the main purpose of the contract can amount to frustration

38
Q

Krell v Henry (1903)

A

The event, which was the main purpose of the contract, would not occur therefore the contract frustrated.

39
Q

Herne Bay Steamboat Co. v Hutton (1903)

A

Judgment: The contract was not frustrated as one main reason for the contract still remained - the viewing of the fleet.

40
Q

The contract has become less profitable

A
41
Q

Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham Urban District Council (1956)

A

Judgment: Resultant contract for builders not radically different to what parties had originally agreed so no frustration.

42
Q

Tsakiroglou and Co. Ltd v Nobles Thorl GmbH (1962)

Judgment:

A

Shipping route not specified, and Sues crisis meant alternate, more time consuming and expensive route only available route - deemed not to frustrate contract, as contract could still be performed. Bit harsh!

43
Q

The event being a foreseeable risk/event mentioned in contract

A
44
Q

Amalgamated Investment and Property Co. Ltd v John Walker and Sons Ltd (1977)

A

Judgment: It was deemed foreseeable that an old building might become ‘listed’, reducing its market value as it could not be redeveloped

45
Q

Armchair Answercall v People in Mind (2016)

A

AA affirmed the contract for a period of five months after an alleged frustrating event, supporting court’s decision that contract not frustrated.