Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Discharge of Contract. - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Cutter v Powell
        
        A sailor was contracted to sail a merchant ship travelling between Jamaica and Liverpool. He was to be paid on arrival at the Liverpool docks. Unfortunately he died on the way home from Jamaica. His wife sued for his wages up until his death but was unsuccessful. The court held that the contract required ENTIRE performance, as he he had not completed the entire journey, she could claim nothing
        
        POL: If a contract requires complete performance, any failure to perform the contract in its entirety will result in the parties being entitled to nothing.
      - Re More
        
        Contract required the delivery of canned tinned fruit. The contract specified that the fruit was to be packed in cases of 30 tins. On delivery it was discovered that although the correct number of tins had been sent, about half the cases contained only 24 tins in each. This actually made no difference at all to the market value of the goods and the buyer received the number tins he wanted. But the delivery did not correspond with the description - there was not exact performance and as a result, the buyers were entitled to reject the whole consignment.
        
        POL: A description for delivery can be a condition of a contract.
  - - - Divisible contracts are ones where the contract can be seen as being made up of various parts or as a series of quite separate obligations rather than a single obligation. If each part can be discharged separately then it might also be enforced separately (if the courts think it just) and the strict rule of complete performance will not apply.
        
        Ritchie v Atkinson
        
        Ship owner agreed to take cargo at an agreed rate per ton, but he only carried part of the cargo. He was entitled to be paid for the cargo he took.
        
        POL: An agreed price per ton is able to be divided into weight taken and weight not.
    - - Where one of the parties has performed the contract partly, but not completely, if the other party has shown willingness (ie agreed) to accept the part performance, the strict rule will not usually apply. There must be a genuine choice of whether or not to accept part-performance and the innocent party must agree to part-performance.
        
        Sumpter v Hedges
        
        Here a builder agreed to construct two houses and a stable on the Ds land for £565. However, he abandoned the project after completing £333 worth of the work, so the D had to complete the building himself, and did so using materials left behind by the builder. The builder claimed for work done (the £333s worth) and materials supplied (the materials he left behind). The claim for the work failed. The D was not choosing to accept part-performance and finish the job himself; he had no real alternative but to complete the building, which would otherwise be just a useless mess on his land. However, he did not have to use the materials left behind, and so the builder was allowed to claim for these.
        
        POL: There was no choice to accept part performance so the builder can not claim for his work.
    - - Partial performance can obviously range from almost nothing (if agreed) to a substantial part of the work. If a party has done substantially what is required under the contract and the other party are refusing to pay then the doctrine of substantial performance can apply.
        
        Hoenig v Isaacs
        
        The C agreed to decorate and furnish the D’s flat for £750 payable by two instalments - £400 in advance and the balance of £350 upon completion. The C completed the work but the D refused to pay the final £350 claiming that the design and workmanship were defective. Whilst the court agreed there were problems with the work done, the cost of putting these right would be £56. Consequently it was held that the decorator had substantially performed and was entitled to the balance of the contract price, less the £56 needed to put right the defects.
        
        POL: The completion was substantial, but not up to standard, so there is completion in part.