Contract B Flashcards
(128 cards)
A contractual term is a condition if ‘it is an an essential element in the contract’ for which the other person would have required ‘strict or substantial performance’.
Tramways Advertising v Luna Park (NSW) Ltd (1938) NSWCA
Advertisement - min 8 hours/day - average 8 hours/day.

A term will be intermediate if it can be breached in a variety of ways. It will justify termination if it ‘denies substantially the whole benefit under the contract’.
Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd [1962] EWCA
“Seaworthiness” - intermediate term - multiple ways breachable.
A contract is repudiated when one parties indicates an intention not to be bound by its terms.
Carr v JA Berriman Pty Ltd (1953) HCA
Repudiation - lock out - bought steel from third party.

An accumulation of small breaches can amount to a repudiation.
Progressive Mailling House Pty Ltd v Tabali Pty Ltd (1985) HCA
Terse relations - rent, maintainence, sublease - cumulative effect.

In installment contracts, it may be repudiation if there is a sufficient % breached and liklihood of repeat.
Maple Flock Co v Universal Furniture Products (Wembley) (1934) 1 KB 148
Furniture stuffing - 100 tonnes - only one with excesse chlorine.
A bone fide belief you are performing according to the contract is not termination (at least prior to being put on notice).
DTR Nominees v Mona Homes [1978] HCA
Subdivision rights - mistaken interepretation - not explained.

What is anticipatory breach?
Foresee inevitable breach the contract -non-breaching party accepts - sues for damages and/or terminate.

If time is of the essence, strict performance is required and failure to comply allows termination.
Union Eagle Ltd v Golden Achievement Ltd [1997] UKPC
10 minutes late to settle - lost deposit - ‘certainty’.

Even if time is not of the essence, a delay can be so extensive as to amount to repudiation if shows unwillingness to be bound.
Laurinda v Capalaba Park Shopping Centre (1989) HCA
Registration of lease - 9 months delay - inadequate excuses.

Where time is not of the essence, the party not in default may give a notice fixing a reasonable date for completion and making that time the essence of the contract.
Louinder v Leis [1982] HCA
Buyer impatient - premature notice - validity of notice discussed.

Can you complete the time not of the essence timeline?

What are the two requirements for a valid election to affirm?
Has the party elected by unequivocal words or conduct?
Did the party have knowledge of the necessary facts that imply that an election was made?
Knowledge of the necessary facts to support an election need only be the material facts, not their legal conclusion.
Sargent v ASL Developments (1974) HCA
No planning certificate - legal advice 32 months later - too late.

Providing a period of grace while “reserving all rights” is not unequivical conduct capable of forming an election.
Tropical Traders Ltd v Goonan (1964) HCA
Struggling to pay - grace period - rights reserved.

To terminate, a party must be ready, willing and able to perform (unless anticipatory breach makes their performance useless).
Foran v Wight (1989) HCA
Seller could not complete - buyer forwent fiannce - allowable.
If you affirm a contract, it keeps it on foot for both parties.
Bowes v Chaleyer (1923) HCA
Buyer repudiated - seller continued to import - affirmed - could be sued for breach of import conditions.

You can be estopped from terminating if the other party relies on your representation to their detriment.
Legione v Hateley (1983) HCA
Obiter only - “that should be ok” not a clear representation.

You may be prevented from terminating an agreement due to the defaulting party claiming relief against forfeiture where there is unconsciousability, a minor breach and no fault on their part.
Tanwar Enterprises v Cauchi (2003) HCA
Buyer 1 day late with finance - patchy history - not exceptional.

As much as money can, put the aggrieved party in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed.
Robinson v Harman (1848) per Parke B.

Reliance based damages will be awared in instances where you cannot prove your expectation loss.
McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission (1951) HCA
Non-existant oil tanker - expectation uncertain - reliance.

Damages can be awarded even if the plaintiff only lost a chance of receiving a benefit.
Howe v Teefy (1927) NSWSC
Racehorse wrongly repossessed - lost chance - compensable.

In assessing causation, courts must use their common sense to decide whether there is an NAI.
Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation (1987) NSWCA
Auditor negligence - company traded out - property crash.

What is the two stage test for remoteness from Hadley v Baxendale (1848)?
The plaintiff will only be liable:
a) for losses arising naturally; or b) losses actually contemplated by the parties.
If you take reasonable steps to mitigate and it increases your loss, can you claim the additional loss?
Yes.




























































































