Equitable Remedies Flashcards
Co‐operative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll Stores (Holdings) Ltd [1997] Facts
- A leased a shopping mall
- In lease, covenant that they would use it as a supermarket and it would remain open for normal hours
- A wanted to close the mall
- Was the covenant enforceable?
- Held:
- No
- No way to enforce to keep the shop open
- Cannot award specific performance
Co‐operative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll Stores (Holdings) Ltd [1997] Principle
Specific Performance is difficult to use
• No way to enforce to keep the shop open
Contracts not specifically enforceable
2) Contracts requiring constant supervision
Societe des Industries Metallurgiques SA v The Bronx Engineering Co Ltd [1975] Facts
- machine that D manufactured
- court refused specific performance
- machine was unique
- they will not make the same one
- Time is not that important
Societe des Industries Metallurgiques SA v The Bronx Engineering Co Ltd [1975] Principle
The availability of a replacement
• unsatisfactory substitute
Cohen v Roche [1927] Facts
- situation where there was no satisfactory substitute
- white company chairs
- buyer wanted specific performance
- held:
- they were not special value or interest
- not unique enough to get specific performance
- RARE TO AWARD SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
Cohen v Roche [1927] Principle
The availability of a replacement
- they were not special value or interest
- not unique enough to get specific performance
• RARE TO AWARD SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
Johnson v Agnew [1979] Principle for specific Performance (4)?
1) termination for breach of contract is prospective rather than retrospective
o looks at future obligations rather than past obligations
2) C for specific performance does not forfeit his right to repudiate if D accepts the breach
3) Court will generally oversee specific performance
o Decides when it has taken place
4) damages are assessed at date of breach
Decro‐Wall International SA v Practitioners in Marketing Ltd [1971] Facts
- D Manufactured tile
- P was distributor
- Contract said either side could terminate the contract upon provision of reasonable notice
- P was trying to develop the market in the UK
- Spent a lot off money of marketing
- Expected profits to be low at first, but would eventually grow
- They were right
- D terminated the agreement once it reached that stage
- What is reasonable notice in this situation?
- Held:
- Cant just cut it off
- 12 months
Decro‐Wall International SA v Practitioners in Marketing Ltd [1971] Principle
Difficulty of quantifying damages
• Cant just cut it off
Evans Marshall & Co Ltd v Bertola SA [1973] Principle
Difficulty of quantifying damages
- considered of damages were adequate remedy
- Held:
- LJ Sacks?
- Where there is difficulty, specific performance and injunctions are preferable
Warner Bros v Nelson [1937] Facts
• Betty Davis (Nelson) N
• Contract that she would act for W, but would not act or sing for anyone else without permission from W
• Also, She could do no other employment during this time
• Held:
o Did not enforce covenant that she could not work anywhere else
o Cannot be compelled to act for W as well
o Did allow covenant that she could not act or sing for anyone else
o Cannot force someone to act against their will
Warner Bros v Nelson [1937]
Specific Performance
o Cannot be compelled to act for W as well
o Cannot force someone to act against their will
Contracts not specifically enforceable
1) • Contracts for personal services
Page One Records v Britton [1968] Facts
• C was a record company, owned by Larry Page, who was the manager of the pop group ‘The Troggs’
• The Troggs contracted to have C to be their manager and sole agent for 5 years in return for 20% of their profits
• Term of the contract was the The Troggs would not appoint anyone else during this period
• Relationship with Larry Page and The Troggs broke down and the Troggs worte a letter seeking to terminate the contract
• C sought an injunction to prevent the Troggs from appointing a new manager
• Held:
o Injunction refused
o An injunction would be similar to a specific performance by compelling the Troggs to continue to employ C or not work at all
Page One Records v Britton [1968] Principle
Injunction
Refused
o An injunction would be similar to a specific performance by compelling the Troggs to continue to employ C or not work at all
Indirect effect
Mutuality of remedy
Co‐operative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll Stores (Holdings) Ltd [1998]
o Rules is using specific performance (4)?
1) it is not allowed if it causes severe hardship to D
• Tito v Waddell
2) if P acted dishonestly
• only awarded if equity is justified
• if you are dishonest, you cannot be awarded an equitable remedy
3) P fails to perform an inducing promise to D
• will not award it
• Misrep issue
4) if impossible for other party to comply with it
• watts v spence
Beswick v Beswick [1968] Facts
- nephew promised uncle that he would pay annuity to aunt if uncle transferred good will of business to nephew
- aunt was not party to the contract
- could she enforce the contract?
- Damages would just be nominal, no financial
- Held:
- Allowed for specific performance
- Allowed her to enforce the contract
- It would have be unjust to allow nephew to get benefit of the promise without carrying out his side
Beswick v Beswick [1968] Principle
When Damages are insignificant
- Allowed for specific performance
- It would have be unjust to allow nephew to get benefit of the promise without carrying out his side
Tito v Waddell (No 2) [1977] Facts
o Ocean island mining case
o Supposed to replant all the trees (specific performance)
o Did not do it because it would cause undue hardship
o Did not make economic sense
Tito v Waddell (No 2) [1977] Principle
o Rules is using specific performance
1) it is not allowed if it causes severe hardship to D
Contracts not specifically enforceable
3) Contracts which are too vague
Watts v Spence Facts
o Specific performance was asked to sell land
o Land was not owned by D
o Could not sell it
Watts v Spence Principle
o Rules is using specific performance
• 4) if impossible for other party to comply with it
Gryf‐Lowczowski v Hinchingbrooke Healthcare NHS Trust [2005] Facts
• G employed as a consultant surgeon • Rule: o Court applied injunctive relief o If he was not allowed to return to his position, it would be very difficult for him to work in the UK o Damages would not be adequate o Career would have ended
Gryf‐Lowczowski v Hinchingbrooke Healthcare NHS Trust [2005] Principle
Allowed for specific Performance in a Contracts for personal services
Contrasts Warner Bros v Nelson
Contracts that are not specifically enforceable (4)
1) Contracts for personal services
2) Contracts requiring constant supervision
3) Contracts which are too vague
4) Building contract
Mutuality of remedy?
o Requirement for specific performance
o Remedy must be mutual
o Cannot request it if it would not be available to you
o If you request it, it must be available to the other side as well
Price v Strange [1977] Facts
• S had a lease on maisonette
• Made a deal with P that he would sub lease it to him if P did interior and exterior work
• P did some of the work, but did not do exterior work
• S repudiated the agreement
• Prevented P from doing the rest of the work
• Work was completed at S’s own expense
• P sued
• S argued lack of mutuality
• Held:
• Must look at facts to see if mutuality exists
• Fairness plays a role (works both way)
o Equitable remedy
• Just because some obligations might remain, does not prevent specific performance
• Cannot do it in this case because damage were an adequate remedy
• Cannot request specific performance if it cannot be enforced against you
Price v Strange [1977] Principle
Specific Performance
Mutuality of remedy
• Fairness plays a role (works both way)
o Equitable remedy
• Cannot request specific performance if it cannot be enforced against you
3 types of Injunctions?
- 1) • Interlocutory injunctions are designed to regulate the position of the parties pending a hearing
- 2) • A prohibitory injunction orders a defendant not to do something in breach of contract
- 3) • A mandatory injunction requires a defendant to reverse the effects of an existing breach
Insurance Co v Lloyd’s Syndicate [1995] Facts
• D was reassurance
• Commenced arbitration against P
• P had attempted to not be bound by the contract because of non disclosure
• Argued
• Non disclosure
• & P was nt covered under the contract
• P applied for an injunction
• Try to keep D from disclosing the award that had been made
• Did not want to set a precedent
• Held:
• Gave us a Test for when an injunction should be applied
• The reasonable necessity test
o Whether it is reasonably necessary or not to award one
Insurance Co v Lloyd’s Syndicate [1995] Principle
Injunctions
Gave us a Test for when an injunction should be applied
•The reasonable necessity test
o Whether it is reasonably necessary or not to award one
Lumley v Wagner (1852) Facts
- W was contracted to sing in theatre for 3 months
- Required to sing only for L
- 3rd party G, offered W a larger sum to sing for him
- court said they could not compel W to sing
- Could enforce negative injunction, to prevent her from signing elsewhere
- Can use negative injunctions from preventing things from occurring
- Not positive ones
Lumley v Wagner (1852) Principle
Injunctions
- Could enforce negative injunction, to prevent her from signing elsewhere
- Can use negative injunctions from preventing things from occurring
- Not positive ones
Wroth v Tyler [1974] facts
- sale of a house
- seller backed out because he and wife was splitting up
- wife put property claim on the house
- Purchaser sued
- During litigation, value of house doubled
- Could we have specific performance?
- No, because of divorce
- How much damages should be awarded?
- Foreseeability
- How foreseeable was it that house would go up in price
- Allowed increase in cost of house (it was foreseeable)
- Assessed on the day wife put property claim
Wroth v Tyler [1974] Principle
Looked at both damages and equitable remedies
- Could we have specific performance?
- No, because of divorce
- How much damages should be awarded?
- Foreseeability
- How foreseeable was it that house would go up in price
- Allowed increase in cost of house (it was foreseeable)
- Assessed on the day wife put property claim
Equitable Remedies Structure?
o Always start with standard of performance? o Is there a breach? • Type? • Remedies o Damages o Termination o Equitable remedies
