Breach of Contract
Sale of Goods Act 1979, s. 30(1)
"Where the seller delivers to the buyer a quantity of goods less than he contracted to sell, the buyer may reject them, but if the buyer accepts the goods so delivered he must pay for them at the contract rate"
Hoenig v Isaacs 1952 CA
"exception for 'substantial performance'?" -heading in lec handout facts - contract for lump sum to be paid on completion of decorating flat, amount to be paid £750, defendant only pays £400 because the work was defective, CA held that could not sue for price because of defective work, but could enter counter claim to set off the costs of mending the defective work---further breach had to go to the root of the contract, e.g. 1/2 way finished job, found to be a term not a condition
Definition of entire obligation contract aka Entire Contract per the Law Commission report on restitutionary remedy for partial performance
An entire contract is one in which complete performance by one party is a condition precedent to the other's liability to pay the agreed price.
Munro v Butt 1858
acceptance of partial performance special contract- builder has to meet satisfaction of the surveyor to get paid, fails to do this and abandons the contract, the defendant enjoys the benefits of the plaintiff's work, and this argued as to affirm a fresh contract, but here this cannot be the case because he is in possession of his house which he always was in possession of, if the contract were for a chattel and was something that was accepted and the fruits of which were enjoyed then could properly imply a fresh contract, i.e. a contract different and separate from the special contract before which was abandoned.. (below repeats this but is a direct quote from judgment) Judgment of the court: That cases may exist where, the special contract remaining open and unperformed, an action may still be maintained for compensation on a new contract implied by law, cannot now be disputed. The subject is very ably considered, and the cases collected, in the notes (2 Smith's L. Ca. 29 (4th ed.)) on Cutter v. Powell (6 T. R. 320). But it is unnecessary for us to follow the learned counsel through their argument, because it appears to us that there was no evidence in this case from which such a contract could be properly inferred by the jury. The facts relied on by the plaintiff were that, the work on the house still remaining unfinished, and no certificate having been procured, the defendant had yet resumed possession and was enjoying the fruits of his labour. Of this there certainly was some, though slight, evidence. Now, admitting that in the case of an independent chattel, a piece [753] of furniture for example, to be made under a special contract, and some term, which in itself amounted to a condition precedent, being unperformed, if the party for whom it was to be made had yet accepted it, an action might, upon obvious grounds, be maintained, either on the special contract with a dispensation of the conditions alleged, or on an implied contract to pay for it according to its value; it does not seem to us that there are any grounds from which the same conclusion can possibly follow in respect of a building to be erected, or repairs done, or alterations made, to a building on a man's own land, from the mere fact of his taking possession. Indeed the term "taking possession" is scarcely a correct one. The owner of the land is never out of possession while the work is being done.
Sumpter v Hedges 1898 CA**
facts - builder build uncompleted house, abandons the project but leaves materials, the defendant uses the materials to finish building, the plaintiff not entitled on grounds of a quantum meruit - "what one has earned" Can recover for costs of the materials....Deakin says look at as two contracts one of contract of sale, i.e. for the materials & contract of service, i.e. using materials to construct building ...mentioned more or less in statement by Chitty LJ's judgment "In the case of goods sold and delivered, it is easy to shew a contract from the retention of the goods; but that is not so where work is done on real property."
Dakin & Co Ltd v Lee 1916 CA**
read ** bits basics - lump sum contract, abandoned work and left materials, owner uses them to finish, no right to price only awarded claim for the materials. --builder, does three things unsatisfactory in relation to contract. The authorities show that a builder who has been working under a contract which he has not carried out in its entirety is nevertheless ***entitled to recover on a quantum meruit***, 1) unless either the work done is **useless to the building owner or 2) is in the result something quite **different from that which was contracted for, or 3) unless the builder has himself **abandoned the contract and refused to complete the work: PICKFORD L.J. "To my mind our decision does not interfere with any one of them. **Certainly I have not the slightest wish to differ from the view that if a man agrees to do a certain amount of work for a lump sum and only does part of it he cannot sue for the lump sum; but I cannot accept the proposition that if a man agrees to do a certain amount of work for a lump sum every breach which he makes of that contract by doing his work badly, or by omitting some small portion of it, is an abandonment of his contract, or is only a performance of part of his contract, so that he cannot be paid his lump sum.** It seems to me that there would be a performance of the contract, although some part of it was done badly, and that seems to me to be the position here."
