Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Discharging a contract - Coggle Diagram

- - - - In this case, Lord Kenyon CJ says that the Sailor’s wage (almost 4x the going monthly rate) was an indication that he wasn’t interested in part performance and made full performance a condition precedent to payment of the (high) wage
      - —In this case, Cutter (a sailor) undertook to serve on a voyage from Jamaica to Liverpool for a payment 30 guineas by Powell, payable only if Cutter completed the voyage. He died during the voyage
  - - - —This is when the court is satisfied that enough performance has been completed for the court to define the contract as completed
      - Quantum meruit
      - Bolton v Mahadeva [1972] 1 WLR 1009 - In this case, Bolton’s attempt to install a central heating system was (seriously) defective enough for the Court to hold that the contract hadn’t been substantially performed.
      - Hoenig v Isaacs [1952] 2 All ER 176 - In this case, Hoenig had to pay Isaacs the fees owed (£750), minus the remedial (cost of remedying the defect) amount of £56 (Rule: Substantial performance does not require the performance to be ‘perfect’ or to meet all of the expectations of the other party)
    - - Sumpter v Hedges [1898] 1 QB 673: In this case, as Hedges hadn’t accepted the partial performance and could not return the half-finished buildings, the ‘partial performance rule’ was barred. Sumpter could only recover the cost of the materials
      - The promisee can freely agree to accept partial performance. If accepted by the promisee, then a sum is payable to promisor for the work completed (quantum meruit)
      - Ritchie v Atkinson (1808) 10 East 295
      - Promisee prevention rule
        
        -- If the promisee prevents the promisor from fulfilling their contractual obligations, then the promisor is entitled to payment for what has been completed.
        
        Planche v Colburn & Anor | 172 ER 876
      - Severable obligations rule
        
        Taylor v Laird [1856] - Here the Claimant was promised £50p/m for taking command of a steamer ‘for an exploring and trading voyage up the river Niger’
        Even though the Claimant abandoned the voyage incomplete, it was held that he was entitled to £50 for each month served (= the obligation was not entire)
- - - - Here the pursuers insisted on their right to perform their contract to advertise the defender’s business on litter-bins for three years and to claim the contract price of £196 even though the defender repudiated the contract on the same day it was made.
      - HoL —Held that the claimant was not obliged to accept the breach of contract and could continue with the contract.
        
        They were entitled to full payment for the three years advertising.