Discharge and Breach Flashcards
Discharge by a new contract
where the contract is wholly executory (no one has done anything; no consideration has been given), a mutual waiver of performance formally agreed constitutes consideration
(The Hannah Blumenthal)
Discharge by operation of a term in the contract itself
By condition subsequent or precedent,
Head v Tatersall
Entire Obligations Rule
In contracts to complete a whole performance or pay a lump sum, complete performance is required
(Cutter v Powell)
Partial Performance
No obligation to pay unless performance is voluntarily accepted by the offeror.
A Quantum Meruit is owed - this purely covers costs and is not a proportion of the contract price
(Sumpter v Hedges)
A Substantial Performance
i.e. more than a partial performance
Obligation to pay the full contract price, less the cost of remedying defects.
(hoenig v Isaacs)
There may be a failure of substantial performance where the work performed by one party is not objectively poor
The Liddesdale
Tender of Performance:
One party may be wrongfully prevented from performing by the default of the other
(Startup v MacDonald)
Divisible Contract
Where the contract allows for performance of one or more obligations separately from others
(Rose and Frank v Crompton Bros)
Performance by a 3rd Party
Acceptable unless the contract is one for a personal service and is incapable of exactly similar performance by anyone else
(Robson v Drummond)
c.f.
(British Waggon Co v Lea)
Breach
Where a party, without lawful excuse, fails or refuses to perform what is due from him under the contract, or performs defectively or incapacitates himself from performing
(Treitel)
Anticipatory Breach
Before the time for performance of the contract, one party informs the other unequivocally that they will not fulfil their obligation to perform the contract.
Once the innocent party accepts this and notifies the contract-breaker, the the contract is breached.
(Hochster v De La Tour)
If it is not accepted then it is still possible for the contract-breaker to fulfil.
With an Anticipatory Breach it is the innocent party’s freedom to accept or reject the other’s repudiation
Frost v Knight.
Breach of a Condition
Gives the party a right of election
They can choose whether to affirm the contract or treat it as repuiated
The right of election: the innocent party as a reasonable amount of time to decide
Latvian Shipping Co
The right of election: affirmation must be ‘clear and unequivocal’
Rendsburg Investments
The right of election: obligations and rights remain on both sides until the innocent party has made a decision.
White and Carter v McGregor
The right of election: the innocent party can choose whether to wait for the specified date of performance and then elect, or to treat the contract as immediately repudiated
Hochster v De La Tour
- in most circumstance it is better to fulfil the contract and claim damages rather than to claim smaller quantum meruit damages.
Limits to affirmation
- must not need the co-operation of the contract breaker (Twickenham)
- the innocent party must have a ‘legitimate interest’ in affirming the contract (McGregor
Limits to affirmation: the innocent party must not need the cooperation of the contract breaker
Twickenham and Garden Development
Limits to affirmation: The innocent party must have a ‘legitimate interest’ in affirming the contract
White and Carter v McGregor
There will be no ‘legitimate interest’ where the affirmation is ‘wholly unreasonable’
- Wholly unreasonable (The Alaskan Trader)
Court can hold that there is no option to affirm following a breach
MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co v Conttonex
- the commercial adventure envisaged by the contract had become frustrated and so the question of whether MSC had any legitimate interest in affirming the contract did not even arise.
Dangers of affirmation
- The affirming party may themselves breach the contract (The Simona)
- A frustrating event may deny any right to damages
(Avery v Bowden)
Termination of a contract
The party must notify the other of their election to terminate clearly and unequivocally (Vitol v Norelf)
- This can be done by conduct alone (The Santa Clara)
Termination gives rise to an immediate right of action to claim damages (Hochster v De La Tour)
Breach of an innominate Term
The innocent party’s rights depend upon the seriousness of the breach
- A serious breach is one which deprives the innocent party of ‘substantially the whole benefit of the contract’
(Hong Kong Fir)
Frustration
A frustrating event is a supervening event that is the fault of nether party, and renders the contract impossible, illegal or radically different.
From the date of the frustrating event, all future obligations are discharged by operation of law
The more foreseeable the event, the less likely it is to frustrate.
Frustration: supervening
between the agreement and the promise
Frustration: Unforeseeable
Amalgamated Investment