Discharge Flashcards
DbP, strict rule case:
Cutter v Powell (1795)
Facts: a seaman died mid-voyage and his wages were to be paid at the end. Widow attempted to claim them.
Held: widow was not able to recover because he had not completed performance of his contractual obligation.
Led to harshness in the sale of goods:
Re Moore & Co’s and Landauer & Co’s Arbitration [1921]
Facts: defendants agreed to buy 3,000 tins of canned fruit from the claimants packed in cases of 30 tins. Delivered in cases of 24 tins. Defendants refused to pay.
Held: court held that the defendants were entitled to reject the entire consignment as it was not precisely that which was agreed.
Exceptions to the strict rule of DbP, partial performance:
Roberts v Havelock (1832)
Facts: a shipwright agreed to repair a ship. The contract did not expressly state when payment was to be made. Before completing the repairs he requested payment for the work completed to date. Defendants refused to pay.
Held: since the contract did not require the claimant to complete all of the work before payment was made, the court held that the shipwright was not therefore bound to complete the repairs before payment.
Sumpter v Hedges (1898)
Facts: the claimant agreed to build a house and stables on the defendant’s land. He completed around two-thirds of the work and then abandoned the contract. The defendant completed the two buildings and refused to pay the claimant for the work done.
Held: the claim failed. The claimant could not recover for the work done since the defendant had no option but to accept the partially completed buildings.
Exceptions to the strict rule of DbP, substantial performance:
Dakin v Lee [1916]
Facts: claimants agreed to carry out repairs on the defendant’s house and the work was complete but for three minor defects which could be fixed at a small cost. Defendant refused to pay.
Held: court upheld the claim since the obligations under the contract had been substantially completed, subject to a deduction on the cost of fixing the outstanding defects.
Bolton v Mahadeva [1972]
Facts: the claimant contracted to install a hot water and central heating system in the defendant’s Home for £560. There were numerous defects including fumes affected the air in the living room and the house was on average 10% less warm than it should have been. Overall would cost £175 to rectify the deficiencies.
Held: CoA held that there had not been substantial performance and therefore the claimant not entitled to recover anything.
Exceptions to the strict rule for DbP, prevention of performance:
Planche v Colburn [1831]
Facts: the claimant agreed to write a book for the defendant as part of a series. The agreed contract price was £100 to be payable in completion. Defendant then cancelled the request after claimant had finished half the book. Claimant brought an action to enforce the payment.
Held: the claimant was entitled to recover £50 because the defendant had prevented the performance.
DbF, original case:
Paradise v Jane (1647)
Facts: Jane owed rent under a lease to Paradine. Jane contended that he had been forced off the land for three years due to an invading army and that he should not therefore be liable to pay rent.
Held: court held there was still a contractual duty to pay rent. This was not discharged by the intervening event of the invasion. Liability for intervening events should be covered by express provision for them in the contract.
DbF, impossibility, two cases:
Condor v Baron Knights [1966]
Facts: 16 yo agreed by contract to play the drums for the defendant band for 7 nights per week for 5 years. Claimant suffered a mental breakdown and was told by his doctor that he should not perform more than 4 nights per week. Band dismissed him. Brought a claim for wrongful dismissal.
Held: claimant’s action was unsuccessful as his medical condition made it impossible for him to perform his contractual obligations and the contract was thus frustrated.
Taylor v Caldwell (1863)
Facts: claimants hires out a music hall in Surrey for holding four grand concerts. Claimant went to great expense to organise. However the music hall was destroyed in an accidental fire.
Held: claimant’s action for breach failed. Contract had been frustrated as the fire men’s the contract was impossible to perform.
DbF, change in circumstances, two cases:
Krell v Henry [1903]
Facts: Henry hired a room from Krell for two days to view the coronation of Edward VII but the contract itself made no reference to this. The king’s illness caused a postponement and defendant refused to pay for the room.
Held: the court held that the contract was frustrated. Henry was excused from paying as the coronation was the foundation of the contract.
Herne Bay Steamboat v Hutton [1903]
Facts: defendant hired a boat to sail around the Solent to see the new King’s inspection of the fleet gathered in the port and to see the fleet which was seldom gathered in one place. Inspection postponed.
Held: the court held that the contract was not frustrated. Although one purpose to see the inspection had been destroyed, the defendant was still able to use the boat and see the fleet. The court considered that there was still some commercial value in the contract.
Limitations on the doctrine of frustration:
1) Frustration is self-induced.
2) Contract has merely become more difficult to perform or less beneficial to one of the parties.
Davis Contractors alts v Fareham UDC [1958]
Facts: contractors agreed to build 78 houses for the Council within 8 months for an agreed price of £85,000. Due to a shortage in skilled labour and material the contract took 22 months to complete and was much more expensive than anticipated. Contractors err paid the contractually agreed price but brought an action arguing that they should be paid more.
Held: contract not frustrated. Fact that a contract had been more difficult to perform or not so profitable is not sufficient to amount to frustration. It was still possible to complete the contract.
