Breach of contract principles of cases PDF

Preview

Summary

contract...

Description

d) Hochster v De La Tour 1853 FACTS: The claimant agreed to be a courier for the defendant for 3 months starting on 1st June 1852. On the 11th May the defendant wrote to the claimant stating he no longer wanted his services. The claimant brought an action on 22nd May for breach of contract. The defendant argued that there was no breach of contract on 22nd May as the contract was not due to start until 1st of June. ISSUE: Could the courier be sued immediately? HELD: The plaintiff was entitled to commence an action for damages on 22 nd May and did not have to wait PRINCIPLE: Where there is an anticipatory breach, the innocent party may either sue immediately or wait for the actual breach e) Yukong Line of Korea v Rendsburg Investments Corporation of Liberia 1996 FACTS: The plaintiff chartered a vessel to the defendants whom sent a message stating that they were “unable to perform any further”. The defendant did not respond to the plaintiff telex response which indicated that it was unacceptable and strongly requested the party in breach to honour their contractual obligation. The plaintiff assumed that a lack of response amounted to the defendant accepting the repudiation as terminating the contract. ISSUE: whether the plaintiff’s telex amounted to an affirmation of the contract. HELD: The response was insufficient and did not affirm the repudiatory breach as it did not convey an intention to continue the contract. PRINCIPLE: If the contract is affirmed, the contract remains in force for both parties and must continue to perform their contractual obligations. f)

Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co. Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd 1962

FACTS: Breach of a 24 month charter as the ship was not seaworthy on departure. It broke down and needed repairs. The charterers terminated but the ship was returned to seaworthy condition when there were still 17 months of the orginal 24 months term remaining. ISSUE: was the charter party breached HELD: (Seaworthiness was neither a warranty or a condition, it was an innominate term in the contract which could be breached in many different way). The delay caused by the breakdown was not great to justify termination. PRINCIPLE: Breach of an innominate term may or may not constitute a repudiatory breach depending on whether the effects of the breach were sufficiently serious to deprive the innocent party of substantially the whole benefit they were intended to get under the contract. g) Bettini v Gye 1876 FACTS: A singer was contracted to perform and agreed to arrive six days in advance for rehearsals but was tree days late. ISSUE: whether the clause related to the rehearsal amounted to a condition.

HELD: the singers breach did not allow the contract to be treated as repudiated but allowed recovery of damages for whatever loss has been suffered. PRINCIPLE: Breach of warranty does not constitute as a repudiatory breach.

Warranty A warranty is a term of a contract containing a minor primary obligation. Breach of such duty a term gives rises to a secondary obligation to pay damages but does not constitute a repudiatory breach. Poussard v Spiers and Bettini v Gye demonstrate the distinctions between conditions and warranties....