Contract Law Equitable Remedies PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Contract Law Equitable Remedies PDF

Description

Contract Law: Equitable Remedies (Zania Putri) 1. Granting an injunction could have the same effect as an order for specific performance in certain circumstances. These circumstances arise when there is no mutuality of remedy for the parties to a contract. - Since the contracts for personal services are not enforceable, the court will not award an injunction as it lacked the mutuality of remedy and the effect of an injunction would be the same as forcing the plaintiffs to continue employing the defendant against their wishes (Page One Records v Britton) - Moreover, an injunction will be granted only if there is an express negative stipulation relate to the positive part of the contract Limitations to award specific performance: - Impracticability (Co-Operative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll Stores) - Damages are a sufficient remedy for breach - If it would be unfair to the defendant - If specific performance would result in severe hardship (Tito v Waddell) - If the plaintiff’s conduct has been poor - If it is impossible to grant specific performance (Watts v Spence)

2. This situation involves breach, damages, and specific performance - Breach: H is in breach of the contract when he refuses to deliver the coaches to P after the tender. - Damages: Therefore, P is entitled to damages after this breach - Specific Performance: If H is unable to deliver coaches as advertised to the purchasers, he will also be in breach of the contracts and susceptible to claims. However, there is no other alternative coaches with similar qualityin the foreseeable future. Thus, if the plaintiff cannot get a satisfactory substitute, courts will think to grant specific performance rather than damages. (Societe des Industries Metallurgiques SA v The Bronx Engineering)

3. (i) As the contracts is for personal service, specific performance will not be likely to be granted (Rigby v Connell) because it is an infringement of liberty if one party is given absolute obligation to work in a personal capacity for the other (De Francesco v Barnum) (ii) If Mickey quits the Robers, they won’t be able to force Mickey to play for them as personal services contract are not enforceable (Giles v Morris), thus Mickey will be in breach of his contract with Rovers. - Argument: The Rovers could try claiming for a prohibitory injunction to prevent Mickey from playing with other clubs for the remainder of the 50year contract with the Rovers - Counter-Argument: However, the Rovers will not be granted an injunction to prevent Mickey from playing other sports with different professions as he earns money from other things, and not football (WB v Nelson)...