Discharge Of Contract

Question 1

Cutter v Powell (1795)

Answer 1

General rule Performance must be complete and in accordance with all the terms of the contract

Question 2

Hoenig v Isaacs 1952

Answer 2

Slightly defective but substantial performance usually allows payment minus the cost of rectifying the defect. Usually a breach of warranty rather than condition

Question 3

Planche v Colburn 1831

Answer 3

Where a party prevents performance of the contract the promisor may recover on a quantum meruit (promisee must pay what the work is done is worth)

Question 4

Union Eagle Ltd v Golden Achievement Ltd 1997

Answer 4

If time is of the essence, any delay will be a repudiatory breach

Question 5

Levey v Goldberg (1922)

Answer 5

A waiver is where a party agrees to accept a different kind of performance - may be binding - and does not create a new contract

Question 6

The Santa Clara 1996

Answer 6

The HoL set out principles of accepting a repudiatory breach

The innocent party may accept the repudiation or affirm the contract; there is no need for a particular form of acceptance; acceptance of the repudiation to go to the attention of the repudiating party need not be done personally or by an agent

Question 7

Taylor v Caldwell (1863)

Answer 7

Doctrine of frustration established - contract is discharged through frustration if an unforeseen event occurs after the contract was made at fault of neither party which makes performance of the contract radically difficult or impossible

Question 8

National carriers v panalpina 1981

Answer 8

Modern view frustration. Courts relieving parties from contractual obligations which at no fault of either party have become impossible to perform or radically difficult

Question 9

The superservant 2 1990

Answer 9

Doctrine of frustration will not apply if the contract expressly provides for the relevant event, if event is self-induced or loss of profits/increased expenses

Question 10

Appleby v Myers (1867)

Answer 10

Frustration automatically terminates a contract which is harsh on a party who has performed part of their obligations before frustrating event

Question 11

Davis v Fareham 1956

Answer 11

There will be no frustration if supervening event makes contract more expensive to perform or difficult

Question 12

Morgan v Manser (1947)

Answer 12

Supervening event may be the subject matter being unavailable- illness in personal service

Question 13

Krell v Henry (1903)

Answer 13

Supervening event can be non occurrence of a specific event

Question 14

Fibrosa v Fairbairn Lawson 1943

Answer 14

HoL held that a paying party could recover any pre-frustration payment if there had been a total failure of consideration I.e, they received no benefit in return for money paid

Question 15

BP v Hunt no 2 (1982)

Answer 15

Goff J held the value of the benefit relates to the end product, rather than the value of the work performed.