Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Discharge Of Contract - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Accepted Part Of Performance;
        If one party partly performs the contract and the other party agrees that this is okay and had a genuine choice of whether or not to accept part performance, then the strict rule will not apply and any work already done will be paid for on a quantum meruit basis.
        Sumpter v Hedges;* NO GENUINE CHOICE so he didn't have to pay for any of the work done.
        Builder agreed to build 2 houses. Completed half the work and then ran out of money. It was *held that the c was left with no choice but to accept the part completed house so hadn't consented to the builders part performance.
        Insufficient work for substantial performance.
      - Prevention Of Performance;
        Planche v Colburn; Publisher hired an author to write one of a series of books. Publisher abandoned whole series.
        It was held that he was entitled to the fee for his wasted work.
      - Divisible Contracts;
        Ritchie v Atkinson; Ship owner agreed to carry cargo at a price per ton. He only carried part of it. It was held that the ship owner was entitled to be paid for what he had carried but he was also liable in damages for breach of contract for not carrying the whole cargo.
      - Substantial Performance;
        If you've done all the work and some of it isn't good enough or if you have done most of the work then you can be paid for the the substantial bit of work you have done. 'Payment on quantum meruit basis'
        Dakin v Lee; Builders agreed to repair premises for £1500. They performed it completely but some of it was performed poorly. It was held that the contract had been substantially performed and the fact that it had been done badly doesn't mean it had not been performed at all. The builders were entitled to be paid subject to a reduction for the defective work.
        The definition of 'substantial' depends on the circumstances.
        Hoenig v Isaac; Decorator contractor to decorate and furnish room for £750. Some furniture was defective but could be repaired for £55. It was held that the contract had been substantially performed on a financial basis so the decorator was entitled to be paid for what he had done. Quantum meruit basis.
        Bolton v Mahadeva; Builder agree to install central heating for £560. Didn't work properly. It was held that it Required repair and was dangerous. Builder entitled to nothing as 69% wasn't substantial.
    - - Contract is illustrated by the case of;
        Union Eagle v Golden; Sale of flat. Completion time stipulated 5pm on a certain date and was 'of the essence'. Completion made by 5:10PM. It was held that the Contract could be withdrawn. They had not completed on the time stipulated.
      - Becomes is illustrated by the case of
        Charles Rickards v Oppenheim; A car was ordered but when it took ages to be delivered the buyer got fed up and said delivery now had to be within the next 28 days. Car delivered after the 28 days and it was held that the buyer was within his rights to reject it.
- - - - Subject matter DESTROYED;
        Taylor v Caldwell; Music hall was hired for an event. Hirer had spent money advertising event when the hall burnt down before it. It was held that the contract was frustrated therefore the contract came to an end. The hirer couldn't get his costs back.
      - Subject matter UNAVAILABLE;
        Jackson v Union; Owner of ship contracted charter to sail ship full of cargo. Cargo was delayed and ship ran aground. Owner of cargo employed someone else to deliver the goods. It was held that the day was so long as to put an end to the contractual obligations. Loss from the 'perils of the sea'. Contract broken as the day was so long that it made the goods completely unavailable. Meant owner of ship couldn't sue. Reasonable to seek alternate delivery.
      - PERSON unavailable;
        Robinson v Davidson; Pianist made a contract to person. It was held that the contract was conditioned to her being well and her sickness frustrated the contract.
        Also includes failure to perform on medical advice...
        Condor v Baron knights; 16 yr old agreed by contract to play drums for the d's band for 7 nights per week for 5 years. C suffered mental breakdown and was told by his doctor that he shouldn't perform more than 4 nights per week.
        It was held that his medical condition made it impossible for him to perform his contracted obligation so contract was frustrated.
- - - - Breach of ordinary term; There is a breach of a warranty or an innominate term unless it is found to be a condition where you can only sue for damages.
        Gearbulk; Ship order which wasnt delivered. Seen as a condition as it was a significant breach, she wasn't happy so she cancelled order.
        Held that
        
        Anticipatory breach; When the party knows the contract will be breached in the future so the claimant will have two options to either repudiate or sue for damages or wait for the performance of breach and then sue.
        Hochster; C agreed to start as a courier in June. May 11 he was no longer needed. Argued that it was anticipatory breach on 22nd may as the c relied on work.