Standard of Performance Flashcards
Hochster v de la Tour (1853) Facts
o T spoke to H on April 12 to enter into his services
o Employment was to start on June 1
o On May 11, T told H that his services were no longer required
o H brought an action, although the time of performance had not yet arrived (June 1)
o Held:
• H was entitled to do so
• It was a anticipatory breach
• Only has to wait until contract is made, not until performance is due
• Entitles H to be discharged and to sue for damages
Hochster v de la Tour (1853) Principle
Anticipatory breach
• created the doctrine
o Contract says performance has to happen on certain day
o If clear that it wont happen on that date, allows us to terminate when it is clear that it wont happen if they know beforehand
o Terminating is a risky business
• Court may not agree with you
• Must be very obvious
Schuler v Wickman Machine Tool Sales [1974] Facts
o S manufactured tools
o W was a sales company granted the sole right to sell certain tools made by S
o Term of contract, listed as a condition, stated that W would send a sales person to each named company once a week to solicit sales
o Imposed obligation to make 1,400 visits total.
o W failed to make some of the visits
o S terminated the contract for breach of condition
o Held:
• It was only a warranty
• Even though it expressly stated that the term was a condition
Schuler v Wickman Machine Tool Sales [1974] Principle
• Construction of the contract
It was only a warranty
• Even though it expressly stated that the term was a condition
• Identifying terms as conditions
Standard was unreasonably high
not a condition
Arcos v Ronaasen [1933] Facts
- Wooden staves
- Should be1/2 inch thick
- Some were not thick enough
- Didn’t meet specific term
- Held:
- Not good
- Said ½ inch , should be that thick
- Strict liability
- Sale of goods
Arcos v Ronaasen [1933] Principle
Strict Liability
Supply of Goods
• Didn’t meet specific term
Not good
Breach and termination
The term broken is a major term: a ‘condition’ or ‘of the essence’
s.13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982?
Standard of reasonable care and skill
- Adds additional requirements for services
- Implied term for services that they must be carried out with reasonable care
- S.14, must be in reasonable time
- S. 15, if no price, must pay reasonable price
4 Ways to Bring a contract to an end?
• 1. by the parties performing according to the terms of the contract (the most common outcome)
• 2. by the parties agreeing to abandon/discharge the contract (needs consideration or deed)
o New agreement in and of itself
o Need to abandon needs consideration
• 3. by operation of law (e.g., frustration)
o Misrep, Duress, Mistake, etc…
• 4. By breach
o Usually just one party breaches
Re Moore and Landauer [1921] Facts
o Fruit to be sold in tins o Supposed to be packed in cases of 30 o In the case, packed cases of 24 o Description said 30 o Held: • Could reject the shipment • S. 15 SOGA 1979
Re Moore and Landauer [1921] Principle
Performance
Parties must perform precisely all the terms of the contract in order to discharge their obligations
Cutter v Powell (1795) Facts
- Seaman
- C was supposed to do his duty as a sailor
- Died 2 weeks before end
- Compensation?
- Did not perform ALL of his obligations
- Held:
- His wife got nothing
Cutter v Powell (1795) Principle
Performance
Parties must perform precisely all the terms of the contract in order to discharge their obligations
Sumpter v Hedges [1898] Facts
• Build stable of C’s land • Did part of the work, than abandon the rest of the contract • D actually completed the building • Can D claim amount of work done • Held: o No o Cannot recover for partial performance o Entire contract
Sumpter v Hedges [1898] Principle
Performance
Divisible contracts
Cannot recover for partial performance
Roberts v Havelock (1832) Facts
• Repair of a ship • Contract did nt say when payment occurred • Ship right stopped • Can he claim money? • Held: o Yes o Divisible o Can claim part of the money • Difference: • Construction of the contract • If implied that partial performance can amount to partial payment, then it will be construed as such • Courts are reluctant to allow someone to claim payment before completion • If in doubt, it is divisible
Roberts v Havelock (1832) Principle
Performance
Divisible contracts
- If implied that partial performance can amount to partial payment, then it will be construed as such
- Courts are reluctant to allow someone to claim payment before completion
- If in doubt, it is divisible
Christy v Row (1808) Facts
• Ship going to Hamburg
• Did not arrive because it was seized by people
• Cargo dropped at other point, still accepted
• Were they liable for cost?
• Held:
o They implied a new contract for the new port
o Could get the expenses incurred
o Cargo was still accepted
o This makes it acceptable to the court
Christy v Row (1808) Principle
Performance
Acceptance for partial performance
• Court can infer new agreement
o This makes it acceptable to the court
Planche v Colburn (1831) Facts
• P was supposed to write a book • Receive £100 for it • Publisher abandoned before he started • P made 2 claims • Held: o P could recover money for research completed o Not his fault that contract was stopped o Not his fault
Planche v Colburn (1831) Principel
Performance
COmpletion of performance prevented by the promise
o P could recover money for research completed
o Not his fault that contract was stopped
- Quasi contract claim
- Recover in on quantum merit (something of value)
Dakin v Lee [1916] Facts
• Building a house • Had specific specification • Did not match of these specifications • Purchasers refused to pay • Held: o Substantial performance occurred o Can receive payment, o Minus defective costs
