Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
DISCHARGE OF CONTRACT
parties are free from further obligations under the contract. Discharge can be
frustration.
Discharge by performance means that both parties involved in the contract has
both parties need to perform according to the time. When there is no time fixed, the
then the party performing the payment must the exact sum of money stated in the
contract, not less or more, the contracted sum of money must be paid in order for
the goods, must deliver the exact amount and kind of goods in the arrangement
requested by the other party, if this is not done then the receiving party reserves the
right to reject the goods, this rule is affirmed in the case Re Moore and Launder
where A contract for the sale of 3,100 tins of peaches described the tins as being
packed in cases of 30. When they arrived the tins were packed in cases of 24,
although the agreed overall number of tins was supplied, the purchaser was entitled
to reject the goods, since the contract had been breached, considering the fact that
Tanisha jack
the goods delivered were not as prescribed in the contract. This might appear to be
a very stringent rule and as such there are exceptions to the rule, first being the
is divided into several parts and payments for the parts that have been completed
can be claimed. In the case Richie v Atkinson where by contract the claimant
agreed to carry a cargo of specified quantity of hemp and iron. The price agreed
was £5 per ton for the hemp and 5 shillings per ton of iron. The claimant only
carried part of the agreed quantity. The defendant argued the contract had not been
fully performed and therefore no payment was due. It was held that the contract
could be divided into separate parts as the parties had agreed a price per ton. The
claimant was thus entitled to payment for the amount carried although the
where one party freely agrees to accept partial performance, then a sum is payable
for the work completed, the main focus being on free or willing acceptance by the
party. In the case Sumpter v Hedges, the claimant agreed to build two houses and
stables for the defendant. It was agreed that £565 would be payable on completion.
The claimant began performance and then ran out of money and was unable to
complete. He had performed just over half of the contract, after which the
defendant decided to complete the work himself. The claimant sought to recover
Tanisha jack
£333 which is the value of the work that had been completed. He argued that in
completing the work himself, the defendant had thereby accepted partial
performance and prevented the claimant from completing the contract. It was held
that the claimant's action failed. The court held that the defendant had no choice
but to accept partial performance as he was left with a half completed house on his
land therefore it was not a free or willing acceptance of the part performance.
the performance then the other party is entitled to payment for the work which has
claimant agreed to write a book on costume and armor for the defendant as part of
a series called 'the Juvenile Library'. The agreed contract price was £100 to be
great deal of it when the defendant cancelled the series. The defendant refused to
pay the claimant despite his undertaking and the fact that the claimant was still
held that claimant was entitled to recover £50 because the defendant had prevented
perform and tries to tender performance but the other party does not accept the
performance then the party seeking to tender performance is discharged from the
contract and the non accepting party is liable in damages for non acceptance.
Tanisha jack
exists a change in circumstances, after the contract was made, which is not the
fault of either of the parties, which renders the contract either impossible to
found to be frustrated, each party is discharged from future obligations under the
contract and neither party may sue for breach. This principle is affirmed in
paradine v jane plaintiff sued defendant under a lease for years for unpaid rent.
Defendant was forced out of possession of the property and was unable to take the
profits. Defendant refused to pay plaintiff rent for the time he was forced out of
possession by the army. Plaintiff demurred and the plea was held to be insufficient.
of condition (as oppose to breach of warranty) this will enable the innocent party
cannot be discharged by a breach of warranty. The leading case for this principle is
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 and refused to pay
compensation. The claimant obtained a service contract elsewhere but this was not
to start until 4th July. The claimant brought an action on 22nd May for breach of
Tanisha jack
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. It was held that where one
party communicates their intention not to perform the contract, the innocent party
need not wait until the breach has occurred before bringing their claim. They may
sue immediately or they can choose to continue with the contract and wait for the
breach to occur.
agreement when both parties agree to bring the contract to an end and release each
Both parties must also provide consideration. If both parties have continuing
obligations then generally the consideration will be simply each of them giving up
their rights under the contract. The only time consideration becomes an issue is
where one party has fully performed their part of the contract when the other has
not. The non-performing party must then provide consideration to make the