DISCHARGE OF A CONTRACT

What was the injustice that the entire performance rule caused in Cutter v Powell [1795]?

Sailor died on a journey he was promised to be pay for, as he didn’t complete performance, he wasn’t paid. Widow sued a lost as contract required full performance.

2. Why did the entire performance rule lead to an unjust outcome in Re Mooore & Co Ltd and Landauer & Co [1921]?

Bought 30 tins of canned fruits to be packed in cases, but in more than half the cases there was only 24 tins. Under SoGA (goods sold by description must correspond with that description) buyers entitled to reject whole consignment and delivery sent didn’t correspond.

3. Write a summary note of Lord Denning’s guidance in Hoenig v Isaacs [1952].

“The promise to complete the work is therefore construed as a term of the contract but not as a condition.”

4. What was the substantial performance in Heonig? Contrast with the findings in Bolton v Mahadeva [1972]

In Hoenig v Isaacs, the defects did not deprive the employer of the main benefit of the contract, so substantial performance was established.
In Bolton v Mahadeva, the defects meant the homeowner did not receive the intended benefit (a working heating system), so there was no substantial performance.

5. What does the case of SWI Ltd v P & I Data services Ltd [2007]tell us about substantial performance where there are fixed price contracts?

Cs were subcontractors, who agreed to construct two buildings. They sued for 51k under 6 invoices but D’s said that they hadn’t completed all the work so therefore weren’t entitled to full sum. CoA held that despite the subcontracts being fixed price contracts, Cs had substantially completed work- so entitled to full sum. In relation to fixed price contracts, court confirmed that under a fixed price contract the price was agreed upon regardless of the actual cost of work and as the obligations had been substantially performed, D’s were entitled to pay despite minor defects/ incomplete work.

6. Explain the idea of severable obligations.

where payment becomes due at various stages of performance, rather than in one lump sum when performance is complete.

7. Explain the idea of ‘quantum merit’.

In some cases, while a contract may not originally have been intended to be severable, one party may later agree to accept and pay for part-performance from the other. When the claimant recovers the cost of such performance as has been provided

8. Why did the builder’s claim for payment fail in Sumpter v Hedges [1898]?

C agreed to build 2 houses and stable on D’s land for £565. But D only completed £333 of work and then abandoned the project. The defendant was not choosing to accept part-performance and finish the job himself, he had no real alternative but to complete the building. He didn’t have to use to materials though so builder could claim for these.

9. Why was the claimant successful in Planche v Colburn [1831]?

C was contracted to write a book, for £100. After he begun writing, D’s chose to cease publishing of book and C was able to recover £50 on quantum merit- as it can also be used to claim cost of work done.

10. Should the claimant in Startup v MacDonald [1843] have been successful? Explain your answer.

Yes, it was to be delivered by the end of march and he did deliver it by the end of march. Plus they never gave him a time in the day to come and therefore were too vague.

SUBSTANTIAL PERFORMANCE

Does a party have to have performed nearly all the contract first? What case answers this? Who decides?

BOLTON V MAHADEVA - walter bolton, c, installed central heating in Mr Mahadevas house for a total one off payment of £560. Mr M was not happy with the work as the heat came on unevenly and gave off fumes so he refused to pay. Defects in the work amounted to £174. Bolton sued M for his money but his action failed. Court held there was no substantial performance. The contract was a lump-sum contract. This meant that it required the whole contract to be performed before obligation to pay.

types of performance :

RICKARDS V OPPENHEIM - “time is of the essence”