DISCHARGE

Question 1

INTRODUCTION

Answer 1

-DISCHARGE MEAN TERMINATION OF CONTRACT
-MAKING AGREEMENT OR CONTRACT NULL
-CONTRACT THAT FULL PERFORMED

Question 2

DISCHARGE BY AGREEMENT
(end contract when term and condition has been met and fulfilled)

Answer 2

BY SECTION 63 OF CONTRACT ACT 1950

“IF THE PARTIES OF CONTRACT AGREE TO SUBSITUTE A NEW CONTRACT FOR IT.\, OR TO RESCIND OR ALTER IT, THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT NEED NOT TO BE PERFORMED”

IN THE CASE KERPA SINGH V. MARIAM SINGH (1966)

THE SON OF PLAINTIFF MADE AN OFFER TO 4000 DOLLAR TO THE CREDITOR SOLICITOR IN DISCHARGE 8650DOLLAR ON THE CONDITION THAT THE CREDITOR COULD RETURN THE CHEQUE TO THE OFFEROR OR TO RETAIN IT. THEIR LORDSHIP FOUND THAT THE CREDITOR CASHUNG OUT THE CHEQUE AND THE MONEY WOULD BE CONSIDEREDNAN AGREEMENT TO DISCHARGE THE DEBTOR.

AS ENACTMENT OF SECTION 64

-PAYMENT LESSER SUM IN SATISFACTION OF LARGER SUM ITS BINDING ON THE PROMISE IF HE ACCEPTED IT
-PAYMENT BY LESSER SUM BY THIRD PARTY TO SATISFY THE LARGER DEBT

Question 3

DISCHARGE BY PERFORMANCE
(both of parties fulfil their obligation arising under the contract)

Answer 3

MUST BE EXACT AND PRECISE WITH WHAT PARTIES HAD PROMISED.

IN THE CASE RE MOORE CO. V. LANDAUER CO. (1921)

DEFENDANT AGREE TO BUY FROM PLAINTIFF 3000 TIN OF CANNED FRUIT TO BE PACKED IN CASE CONTAINING 30 TINS. THE PLAINTIFF SUBSITUTE PACKED OF 24 TIN. THE COURT HELD THAT THE PLAINTFF BREACH ENTITTLED THE DEFENDANT TO REJECT THE WHOLE CONSIGNMENT.

SECTION 38(1) STATED THAT
“PARTIES TO CONTRACT MUST EITHER PERFORM OR OFFER TO PERFORM THEIR RESPECTIVE PROMISES, UNLESS SUCH PERFORMANCE HAS BEEN DISPENSED BY ANY LAW.”

Question 4

DISCHARGE BY FRUSTRATION
(where the parties does not have control over like bencana alam)

Answer 4

A CHANGE OF CIRCURSTANCES RENDERS THE CONTACT LEGALLY OR PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR PERFORMANCE.

IN THE CASE OF TAYLOR V. CALDWELL (1863)

MUSIC HALL (DEFENDANT) HIRED A MUSIC TO PERFORM FOR A SERIES OF CONCERT WAS ACCIDENTIALLY BURNDOWN BEFORE THE CONCERT STARTED.

IN THE CASE BERNEY V. TRONOH MINES (1949)

A CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT WAS DISCHARGED BY FRUSTRATION DUE TO OUTBREAK OF JAPAN INVADED MALASYIA.

IN THE CASE KRELL V. HENRY (1903)

WHERE A ROOM WAS RENT TO WATCH A CORNATION OF KING EDWARD VII BUT DUE TO OWNING THE KING’S ILLNESS, THE CORNATION WAS CANCELLED. IT WAS HELD THAT HENRY COULD BE EXCUSED PAY THE RENT FOR THE ROOM AS THE CONTRACT WAS FRUSTRATED.

THE CONTRACT IS NOT VOID AB INTIO, NUT ONLY VOID FROM THE TIME OF FRUSTRATION EVENT.

Question 5

DISCHARGE BY BREACH
(failed to do something :pay tenant)

Answer 5

WHEN THE PARTIES FAILED TO PERFORM THEIR OBLIGATION AS AGREED.
IF ONE PARTY FAILED TO PERFORM THEIR OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CONTRACT OR BREACHES THE CONDITION, THE INNOCENT PARTY IS ENTITTLED TO TREAT THE CONTRACT ENDED.

IN THE CASE TAN HOCK CHAN V. KHO TECH SENG (1980)
DEFENDANT IS A BUILDING CONTRACTOR EMPLOYED BY THE PLAINTIFF TO BUILD A SHOPHOUSE BY PROGRESS PAYMENT. THE DEFENDANT COULDNOT COMPLETE THE LAST SHOP HOUSE BECAUSE OF THE CLAIM OF THE LAND TO TENANCY RIGHTS. THE COURT HELD THAT THE FAILURE OF THE PLAINTIFF TO PERFORM THE OBLIGATIONS WHICH IS BREACH THE CONDITION ENTITTLED TO RESCIND THE CONTRACT. SERVING THE WRIT AND THE STATEMENT OF CLAIM ON THE PLAINTIFF AMOUNTED TO RESCCISSION OF THE CONTRACT.