Discharge of Contract: Performance

Question 1

Cutter v Powell

Answer 1

• As the contract was for the whole voyage, he had not performed his contract.

Question 2

Ritchie v Atkinson

Answer 2

• The ship owner was entitled to be paid for the part of the cargo he had carried as the contract was divisible.

Question 3

Dakin & Co. v Lee

Answer 3

• Substantial performance applied as there were relatively minor defects in the work.

Question 4

Hoenig v Isaacs

Answer 4

• Quantum Meruit was used to establish payment to be made.

Question 5

Bolton v Mahadeva

Answer 5

• The defects were too great to amount to substantial performance.

Question 6

Young v Thames Properties Ltd

Answer 6

• The court used its discretion to reach a just and fair decision.

Question 7

Plance v Coburn

Answer 7

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

Question 8

Sumpter v Hedges

Answer 8

• 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 no consented to the builder’s part performance.

Question 9

Union Eagle Ltd v Golden Achievement Ltd

Answer 9

• The time for completion of the contract had been specified as 5PM and time was expressly stated to be ‘of the essence.’ The purchaser delivered for the purchase price at 5.10PM and the seller was entitled to repudiate the contract.

Question 10

Charles Rickards Ltd v Oppenheim

Answer 10

• He was entitled to cancel the contract as time has been made of the essence and that term had not been compiled with.