Discharge by Perfromance

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: jamie
  • Created on: 08-05-15 11:41
View mindmap
  • Discharge by Performance
    • General Rule: Performance must be precise and exact. Deviation from the terms of the contract can entitle the innocent party to terminate.
      • Re Moore and Laudner [1921]
        • D agreed with P to buy 3000 tins in cases of 30 tins. They arrived in cases of 24. D refused.
        • The CoA held that the contract was for the sale of goods in cases of 30, and instead it had got mixed with different goods (24). D was entitled to refuse. Under s.13 of SOGA
      • Arcos v Ronaasen [1933]
        • D ordered staves for barrels at 1 inch. P sent 9/16 inch. 6 months after the market fell and D rejected the goods on the grounds that they were not part of the contract.
        • HoL held that D was entitled to the staves specified and therefore was not bound to accept.
      • Reardon Smith v Hansen-Tangen [1976]]
        • A case involving a tanker that was constructed at a different yard to the one specified in the contract.
        • Lord Wilberforce said that the princip;le did not apply and is in need of a look over authorities such as Moore and Arcos.
      • Sale of Goods Act 1979
        • S.15A - restriction on a buyer's right to insist on their legal rights
        • S.13(1) - 'Where there is a contract for the sale of goods by description, there is an implied term that the goods will correspond with the description.
    • Partial Performance: Aparty that partly completes performance is not entitled
      • Entire Contracts
        • Cutter v Powell (1775)
          • D agrees to pay Cutter £30 for voyage. He dies on the way there. His widow claims for the amount of the voyage he did.
          • Held: In an entire contract like this (all paid at the end rather than £4 a month) payment could not be collected unless he finished the voyage.
      • Substantial Performance
        • When performance of the essentials of the contract have been performed
        • H Dakin V Lee [1916]
          • Builders agreed to do work on a house but messed the measurements up slightly.
          • CoA held: there is a line between failing to perform and poor performance. P entitled to recover.
          • Quantity (entire) and quality
        • Balton v Mahadeva [1972]
          • P agreed to install and air conditioner however on installation it did not adequately produce heat and produced fumes.
          • Cairns LJ: Says that heating that does not work properly is not a complete performance
      • Several Obligations (Exception)
        • Taylor v Laird (1856)
          • P contracted to command a ship for £50  per month. He abandons ship mid-way through journey.
          • Held: It was not an entire contract so P could collect money for parts of the voyage in command.
      • Restitution (recompensation) of benefits for
        • D forced into taking restitution: Sumptor v Hedges [1898]
          • P agreed to build two houses and a stable for D. P did half a job and then abandoned the contract. Using P's tools, D finished the job. P claimed for both tools and work completed.
          • CoA awarded compensation for materials, however walking out on the work meant that D had no choice but to take work.
        • If one accepts performance they have to pay partially for it.
    • Time Of Performance: If specified time has passed before performance, have to pay damages for breach

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Contract resources »