Lili Cases Flashcards
(41 cards)
Jane v Paradine
17th Century, established the rule of absolute contract.
Taylor v Caldwell
Facts:
- Fire destroyed music hall
Held:
- Caldwell released from contractual obligations due to the doctrine of frustration
- The termination of subject matter rendered the contract unperformible
Krell v Henry
Facts:
- Coronation case
Held:
- Contract was frustrated
- Although contract did not mention coronation, the conduct before signing made it clear that the coronation is why Henry waned use of the flat
- In most cases, there is a common object of a contract which can be ascertained objectively
Rayneon (NZ) Ltd v Fraser 1940
Held:
- Due to the 1938 regulations, the performance of the origional 1936 contract became non-legally inforceable
- The performance would become illegal
- The contract was frustrated
- Fraser not required to pay remaining rent
Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham Urban District Council
Held:
- Just because it became more timely and expensive, does not mean the doctrine [frustration] can be invoked
Tsakiroglou & Co Ltd v Noblee Thorl GmbH
- Penut shipping
Held: - Still possible to perform contract by the end of December if they took the long route
- Increase in price and time not enough to invoke frustration
Maritime National Fish v Ocean Trawlers
Held:
- MNF had the choice to nominate the chartered boat as 1 of the 3
- It was because of their choice that the common purpose could not be met
- The essense of frustration is that it should not be due to the actions of the parties
- The occurrence of the supervening event should be beyond the power of the parties
Lauritzen A.S. v Wijsmuller B.V.
- Oil rigger transport
Held: - Self induced frustration
- The other unit could be used to perform the contract
- The reason they didn’t want to use the other one is because due to their own decision they engaged another party
- This is not grounds to invoke frustration
Planet Kids Ltd v Auckland Council
Held:
- Planet kids fails in the high court and court of appeal BUT WINS in the supreme court
- Case of part performance impossibility – contract not impossible in its entirety
- There had been partial performance
- Main purpose achieved on imedietely entering agreement
- PK would suffer hardship if the settlement agreement was frustrated (not requirement but relevant)
- Purpose not defeated
- early termination was forseeable
Mana Property Trustee Ltd v James Developments Ltd
Facts:
- Final area of land was smaller than that contracted for
Held:
- Amount of land was essential (high value, would not have entered if not essential)
BUT
- James could not cancel the contract immediately when they found out land is smaller, should have given Mana reasonable time to remedy the issue and supply the land required
- Importance of notice
- the term only needs to be essential to one party
Kumar v Station Properties Ltd
Held:
- The investor’s actions did not amount to repudiation
- Mere unwillingness does not amount to repudiation
- Test for repudiation:
A party may cancel a contract if by words or conduct, another party makes it clear they do not intend to—
(a) perform their obligations
(b) complete the performance
Ruxley Electronics & Construction Ltd v Forsyth
Facts:
- Pool
Held:
- If the cost of fixing is disproportionate to the cost of benefit to be obtained, it is unreasonable to award cost of cure
- $2,500 nominal damages
- The courts can decide whether to quantify the damages based on loss or order cost of cure
Marlborough District Council v Altimarloch
Facts:
- Water rights
Held:
- A could recover full cost of cure – majority decision
- Diminution in value not adequate - purpose of land
- Not reasonable for A to sell land
- No evidence of suitable substitute property available
Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi
Facts:
- Sale of advertising firm
- Agreed damages for a no competition clause
Held:
- Because something is a detterent does not mean it is penal
- May be hard to draw a line between a clause that deters and a clause that punishes
127 Hobson St Ltd v Honey Bees Preschool Ltd
Facts:
- Extensive agreed damages for failure to put in lift
Held:
- Adopts the ParkingEye test
- A legitimate interest is an interest in performance of the contract
- They were given long enough to perform so it was proportional
- Consequences were not penal and were enforceable
Synge v Synge
Facts:
- Promise to leave property for marriage
- D made it impossible to perform
Held:
- Clear repudiation
- P entitled to sue for damages
- When you make a contract impossible to perform, this is repudiation and you are liable for cancellation
Schmidt v Holland
Held:
- Not repudiation when inquiring if they can be let out of the contract
- But IS repudiation when they failed to settle
- High threshold for repudiation
White and Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor 1961
Held:
- W+C entitled to cancel but instead affirmed the contract
- Case criticised because they were allowed to recover cost
Jansen v Whangamata Homes Ltd 2002
Held:
- It must be shown that the electing party made a firm and settled choice and does not intend to go back on it
Burrows Finn and Todd
Affirmation requires an unequivocal choice. Conduct which is more equivocal and less decisive than this will not amount to affirmation.
Wilson v Hines
Innocent party agreed to arbitration to “sort out” the matter.
Held:
No affirmation occurred. These actions didn’t amount to insistence on performance.
Gray v Thomson [1922] NZLR 465
Buyer knew land smaller than represented, but continued to pay instalments of the contract price.
Held:
- Not entitled to cancel as he affirmed the contract.
Starlight Enterprises Ltd v Lapco Enterprises
Facts:
- L to deliver 4000 travel bags to S at 3$ each in 18 months
Held:
- No repudiation
- Said ramping up production to avoid further price increases, not absolute refusal to the remaining contractual obligations
- High threshold for repudiation
MacIndoe v Mainzeal Group Ltd
Held:
- Mainzeal gave reasonable notice / time to remedy
- Gave three weeks from notice plus had given months before issuing notice
