Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Discharge of a contract - Coggle Diagram

- - - - a contract can be seen as being separated parts - non-completion of one part is not a breach of the whole contract - Ritchie v Atkinson
    - - if a party has done all of their work, but some of it isnt very good or they have done most of the work , then entitled to substantial bit of work. quantum merit - merit for the quantity
        
        Dakin v Lee
        
        Hoeing v Isaacs
    - - if one party prevents the other form carrying out his contract - the innocent party can claim to be paid on a quantum meruit
        
        Planche v Colburn
    - - if one party has agreed that the other party need not complete the entire contract, then contract must be paid on a quantum meruit basis
        
        Sumpter v Hedges
- - - - Hochster v de la tour
- - - - impossibility of performance
        
        Jackson v Union Marine Insurance
        
        Robinson v Davidson
        
        Condor v The Baron Knights
      - contract becoming illegal
        
        denny, mott & Dickson v James Fraser &Co - importing a certain goods was frustrated as importing those goods became illegal after the contract was made
      - main purpose of the contract cannot be achieved
        
        krell v Henry - man hired a hotel room to see Ed VLL's coronation but the prince became ill so it was cancelled - the contract was frustrated (the hirement of the hotel) as the event was the main purpose
        
        Herne Bay Steamboat Co.v Hutton - hutton hired a boat to watch the fleet - the king( a part of his coronation) is absent, NOT frustrated as viewing the fleet could be done
      - When frustration CANNOT apply where
        
        There is self-induced frustration
        
        The Contract becomes less profitable
        
        THe event happened was a foreseebal risk, or the event was mentioned in the contract