Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Discharge of contract, image, image - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Bolton v mahadeva. :Pf was to istall central heating and to perform certain other works in the Df’s house The contract price of the central heating installation was a lump sum of £560 .Upon completion, Df complained that the work was defective and refused to pay. Held pf was not entitled to recover for the work done
  - - - A promisor who has substancially perform his side of the contract may sue on the contract for the agreed sum but remain liable in damages for his partial failure to fulfill his contractual obligations
- - - - he is entitled to damages but must perform, ready and willing to perform all his obligations under the contract as and when they become due after the breach
    - - he is relieved, of all further performance under the contract
        the innocent party will also be entitled to damages for the breach.
      - depends on the nature of the term breached
        
        if the breach is of a less important term
        
        it is a breach of warranty
        
        the innocent party is not entitled to treat the contract as discharged.
        
        if the breach goes to the root of the contract
        
        Such breaches entitles the innocent party to tret the contract as discharged and to sue for damages
- - - - The contract must be a contract to do an act
      - Unlawful
      - After the formation, the contract become: impossible to be performed due to some event which the promisor could not prevent
    - - Pf place advertisements outside his flat offering to let windows to view the coronation procession of the new king. The pf told the df that the flat gives a good view of procession. The df hired the flat for $75 from the pf for 26-27 June 1902. The contract however, contained no reference to the coronation procession but it was also take place on those day sand was to pass the flat. The df paid $25 when making the contract and promised to pay the balance $50 on 24 June. The Kings serious illness caused the cancellation of the procession. The pf claimed for the
        balance sum of $50.
        Held: the contract void. The procession and relative position of the flat lay at the foundation of the agreement. The df had rented ' room to view the procession' and the pfs failure to provide the view, though it arose from no fault of his, excused the df from his promise to pay.
    - - Void automatically - Contract is terminated as to the future only, not from the beginning.
      - S.66 of CA 1950- remedy for restitution: any
        person who has received advantage under the contract is bound to restore or to make compensation to the person from whom he received it.