discharge

Question 1

Sumpter v Hudges

Answer 1

P builder contracted to build
2 houses & stables for D Hedges for 565, works completed valued at 333, explained he had run out of money & had to stop, D finished the building using materials left behind by P and P sued for the money, held P had abandoned the contract, he could recover the value for the materials but not for the work as he left the D no option

Question 2

Sumpter v Hudges; Collins LJ

Answer 2

held that where the defendant is given the option to accept incomplete performance, she will be made to pay for it where she has accepted it as the courts
will find the existence of a new contract.

Question 3

Nash & Co v Hartland

Answer 3

the question of whether a contract is entire is matter of construction, if the contract expressly/implicitly states precise and exact performance is required before an obligation to pay arises, the contract is entire

Question 4

Cutter v Powell

Answer 4

sailor engaged on voyage to Jamaica, promised 30 guineas on completion but died en route, widow sought payment proportionate to amt of voyage completed, rejected as the contract was intedned to be an all or nothing proposition, the obligation to pay only arose after performance was complete

Question 5

Collen v Marum

Answer 5

house was to be built for a fixed sum, held part-payment would not be available to the builder on the basis of part-performance as the employer is not bound to pay for half or quarter of a house

Question 6

Boone v Eyre

Answer 6

where a contract has been performed with minor deviations, payment will be due less the amt required for such deviations

Question 7

Hoenig v Isaacs

Answer 7

builder contracted to renovate flat for 750, neglected to put in agreed bookcase for 55, substantial performance had been achieved, builder owed 750 - 55, Denning LJ substantial compliance will ordinarily take place unless the breach goes to the heart of the contract

Question 8

Bolton v Mahadeva

Answer 8

contract to install heating for 560, defects meant system didn’t work, repairs cost 130, held due to the nature of the breach and the high cost of remedy, builder was not entitled to any payment

Question 9

McDermott (SP)

Answer 9

doctrine of substantial performance is limited as it depends on the interpretation of the contract and parties can simply exclude it by expressly providing nothing but total compliance will suffice

Question 10

McDermott (RB)

Answer 10

repudiatory breach is where the defaulting party makes clear their intention not to perform their side of the bargain

Question 11

Eminence Property Develpments v Heany

Answer 11

held the test for RB is whether a reasonable person would think the defaulting party is abandoning the contract

Question 12

Berber v Dunnes

Answer 12

held the ‘cummulative effects’ of the acts complained of must be such as to indicate the party has repudiated the contract

Question 13

Athlone RDC v Campbell (RB)

Answer 13

P were contracted to excavate a well, after dispute with council they said theyw oudl no longer complete the work, held to be RB as D indicated no intention of meeting obligations under the contract

Question 14

Decro Wall International

Answer 14

consistent late payments not sufficiently serious to amount to RB

Question 15

Hochstery De La Tour

Answer 15

held a statement of intent not to perform is a breach of contract

Question 16

Carter v McGregor

Answer 16

D garage entered contract with P to place ad on local authority bins for 3 yrs, D communicated to cancel the contract on the same day it was made, P ignored & began advertising which D refused to pay for, HOL held the innocent party cannot choose whether he will accept repudiation and sue for damages for AP or elect to continue the contract

Question 17

Universal Cargo v Citati

Answer 17

held AP covers all breaches that are bound to happen

Question 18

Leeson v North British Oil

Answer 18

if a party genuinely believes he is complying with the contract they will not have the necessary intention to breach the contract

Question 19

Hong Kong Firs

Answer 19

Lord Diplock stated the test is wether the breach of the term is such as to deprive the party of substantially the whole benefit of the contract as intended by the parties

Question 20

Dundalk Shopping Centre v Roof Spray

Answer 20

D hired P to spray protective surface on roof, negligently done, roof leaked, held since the core of the contract was to waterproof the roof, P was entitled to bring the contract to an end & sue for damages

Question 21

Leopardstown Club v Templeville

Answer 21

dispute between parties, D tried to argue fundamental breach to discharge contract, Charleton J held while there was some lack of attention by Leopardstown the issue could be sorted and therefore fundamental breach does not occur where the breaches are trivial

Question 22

Friel

Answer 22

contractual obligations can no longer be performed as a result of external factors which so radically alter the basic assumptions on which a contract is founded that its performance is impossible or futile

Question 23

Paradine v Hane

Answer 23

original position was that if parties had agreed to obligations they had to carry them out with no excuses

Question 24

Taylor v Caldwell

Answer 24

contract to hire music venue was frustrated when venue burned down

Question 25

Krell v Henry

Answer 25

coronation of Edward VII cancelled due to illness, arrangements to view procession from rooms overlooking route, contract for room for 2 days, contract had no express reference to the coronation process, held the contract had been frustrated, the whole purpose of the contract was the position of the rooms for the procession. ‘It was a licence to use the rooms for a particular purpose and none other’, the procession was regarded ‘as the foundation’ of the contract

Question 26

Krell v Henry (Vaughan William LJ)

Answer 26

held court will find performance of a contract impossible where ‘the non-existence of an express condition or state of things…. is essential to the performance of the contract.’

Question 27

McGuilll v Aer Lingus (test)

Answer 27

1. Party must bind himself to something which subsequently becomes impossible 2. The obligation has become impossible to perform without default of either party 3. The circumstances should be strictly scrutinised as this doctrine is not to be lightly applied 4. Where frustration has arisen due to the conduct of one party – that party cannot rely on the doctrine 5. All the circumstances of the contract should be strictly scrutinised 6. The event must be unexpected 7. If one party anticipated / should have anticipated the event and didn’t anticipate a clause in the contract to deal with it – he cannot rely on the doctrine of frustration

Question 28

Zuphen v Kelly

Answer 28

Murphy J, there must be a change in circs that if performed the contract would be a different thing from what was contracted for

Question 29

Herme Bay Steam Boat v Hutton

Answer 29

D hired boat as means of watching naval review during coronation, review was cancelled when king fell ill, D refused to pay balance owed on contract, held contract still enforceable as the purpose of viewing the ships was still possible – unlike in Krell the contract was not directly linked to the physical presence of the king, boats could still be viewed

Question 30

Browne v Mulligan

Answer 30

contract of employment provided that the employment would only continue provided there was sufficient funding available, hospital ran into difficulty, sought to have contract set aside, SC held where the eventuality has been specifically provided for in a contract the doctrine of frustration cannot apply

Question 31

Canary Wharf v European Medicine Agency

Answer 31

EMA took out long lease, as it is a European institute, they argued contract had been frustrated by Brexit, at time of lease UK leaving EU not foreseeable held contract not frustrated as no evidence it was the ‘common purpose’ of the lease

Question 32

Constantine Line v Imperial Smelting

Answer 32

vessel exploded and sank however this didn’t frustrate the contract of charter as it was due to negligence of shipowners

Question 33

Abbleby v Myers

Answer 33

contract was to install machinery, sum agreed, before completion fire destroyed premises, P sought payment for work done held the obligation to pay only fell due after completion, since this was a future obligation at the date of the frustrating event, it was discharged

Question 34

Fibrosa v Myers

Answer 34

where party to contract can show there was no tangible benefit from the contract or there has been a total failure of performance under the contract, P will be entitled to the return of money