Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Contract Law - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Case 1 : Cutter v Powell** (on a ship, Cutter died, wife still wanted the pay, Court held no because performance no completed under contractual duty)
      - Case 2: Re Moore (held defendant are entitled to reject consignment if it is not exactly as agreed) Situation provided in Sale of Goods Act
    - - Partial performance
        
        If contract is severable, can be paid for partial performance
        
        Case : Robert v Havelock (payment date not mentioned, not bound to complete repairs before being paid)
        
        Case: Sumpter :warning:
      - Substantial performance
        
        then damages payable with according to the incomplete performance
        
        Case: H.Dakin considered contract substancially completed, paid but deduction of cost of fixing
        
        Case: Bolton (defects from the claimants working conditions / Held substantial performance, claimant did not have to recover )
      - Prevention of performance
        
        Wrongly prevented from performing contractual obligations
        
        Case: Planché (can claim damaged or breach the contract, or quantum merit for the work done)
      - Tender of performance
        
        party unable to complete duty without cooperation of the other - in this case they are discharged from further liability
        
        Case: Mcdonalds ( order placed end of asked period so refused to pay - Oucome: equivalent to performance, to other other entitled to damages for non acceptance
      - Time of performance
        
        needs to be stated clearly "time is of the essence" / can also be implied bu the circumstances of the contract
        
        Case: Union Eagle clearly stated to delay amount to repudiation
  - - - Repudiatory breach
        
        Serious breach where innocent party can be discharged
      - Anticipatory breach
        
        Before performance is due, a party makes the other aware that they will not perform /Innocent party can accept or sue for breach
  - - - Traditional Position : Absolute obligation to perform contract in any circumstances
        
        Case : Paradine : (Amry, rent) Still contractual duty to pay, intervening event should have been covered in the contract in prevision
      - Now : Court developed doctrine of frustration to be fairer
        
        2 theories of frustration
        
        1) New term implied in the contract (impossibility of perfomance shall excuse the performance Case: Blackburn
        
        2) The obligation under contract has changed (change of significance of obligation, it can be in a different form / Case : David Contractors
    - - 1) Destruction of subject matter
        
        Case: Taylor Case : Taylor (claimant sued for damages, destruction of subject matter made contract impossible to perform )
      - 2) Personal incapacity to perform a contract of personal service
        
        Case: Condor (sued for wrongful dismissal - Held that medical condition made it impossible for him to perform so contract was frustrated)
      - 3) Government intervention or supervening illegality
        
        Case : Re Shipton* ( wheat requisitioned by government under emergency, no longer lawful for the wheat to be delivered ) *
      - 4) Non occurence of an event, if it is the sole purpose of the contract
        
        Case : Krell (room overlooking coronation, coronation cancelled, Held: as it was the "foundation of the contract" contract was frustrated)
      - 5) Interruption which prevents performance in the form intended by the parties
        
        Case: Jackson (ship was damaged and could not performed in time - Held : Agreed duration was the fundamental nature of the contract - contract frustrated )
    - - 1) If an alternative is possible
        
        Case: Tsakiroglu ( canal closed, was not implied in the contract which canal and it would not make the contract commercially and fundamentally different - not discharged )
      - 2) If performance is more expensive
        
        Case : David contractors (cost of houses were more expensive - wanted to end contract and get payment on quantum merit basis - Held : Not accepted
      - 3) If one party has accepted the risk to be unable to perform
        
        Case : Budgett & Co : (loading within 10 days) defendant has accepted to risk
      - 4) If one party has induced frustration by his choice
        
        Case : Maritime national fish (impossibility of performance was made by choice)
    - - At common Law (contract ends the moment it is frustrated - no obigations after )
        
        BUT case : Chandler room was paid in advance, too harsh to no be reimbursed
      - Under Law Reform
        
        Deals with 1) Recovery of money paid in advance / 2) recovery of work already completed (not obligatory) / 3) recovery of benefit gained through partial performance , to prevent unjust enrichment
- - - - Causation : loss must be a consequence of the breach
        
        Case: County Ltd ( stockbrokers) Held : defendant has acted outside of instructions but it was not the sole cause of the loss
      - Remoteness
        
        Case: Hadley ( Mill, carriers) Loss was not reasonably foreseeable - Arose the Foreseeability test
      - Mitigation : innocent party has to take reasonable steps to minimise loss
        
        Case: Brace Held : Claim for damages for the loss or earnings not accepted, failed to take advantage to reduce his loss
    - - Loss of bargain : innocent party back to the position when the contract was not performed
      - Reliance loss : innocent party back to the position when contract has never been made
- - - - Duty of care Def: the relationship between the claimant and the defendant - obligation to take proper care to avoid causing harm
        
        case: Caparo Industries (auditors owe their duty of care to shareholders - Held : not liable in negligence
        
        Origin of the Threefold test : 1) damage must be reasonably foreseeable / 2) Neighbourhood test / 3) reasonable to impose duty of care
        
        case: Henderson :warning:( agents and clients were under a contract with duty of care, were they really?) - Assumption of liability test
        
        case: Murphy :warning:
        
        Claim for psychiatric illness resulting from shock
        
        case: Alcock :warning:
        
        Establishing duty situations : doctor and patient ..
        
        Extended duty situations : Neighbourhood principle
        
        Test if there is a duty of care : Donogue " person who are closely affected " ( did manufacturer owe duty of care? -YES
        
        Neighbourhood principle: person who are closely affected by my act" - is the damages are forseeable, if there is a proximity between the parties, if it is fair to impose duty of care)
      - Breach of contract
        
        Principle : The reasonable man test
        
        Case : Hall "considered to be the man on the streets" objectif: not to take account personal characteristics
      - Causation
        
        Rule: even if the claimant can claim duty of care, he must still prove that is caused him loss
        
        2 stage test:
        
        1) Causation in fact (did the defendant breach of duty cause damage? "but for test")
        
        2) Causation in Law : Was there an unforeseeable events that broke the chain of causation? (fault less on the defendant)
      - (still causation)
        
        Non remoteness defendant's liability has to end somewhere
        
        Test
        
        Reasonable foreseeability
        
        case : Hall :warning:
        
        The "egg shell skull test"
        
        Is the loss recoverable ?
        
        Case: Banque Bruxelles Lambert :warning:
        
        Pure economic loss
        
        Spartan steel and alloys :warning:
      - Limitation (claimant is entilted to an award of damages to put back in the position where defendant is discharged of duty )
        
        Duty to mitigate losses
        
        Contribution