[toFc]
Hochster v. De La Tour
Facts
In this case, the defendant concluded an agreement with the plaintiff to act as a courier and to travel with them to Europe but before the commencement of the contract, the defendant informed the plaintiff that they are withdrawing the agreement and they doesn’t need his services anymore. The defendant refused the plaintiff to acquire his services and terminated the contract before the due date of the contract. The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant for breach.
Issues Framed
- Whether the contract breached before the due date of its commencement amounts to damages to the other party and he is entitled the same?
- Can a suit be initiated before the due date of the contract if a party refuses to perform the contract?
Contention
Arguments by Plaintiff
The plaintiff brought an anticipatory breach of contract against the defendant for revoking the agreement. Plaintiff contended that the defendant revoked the contract before the due date and was liable to compensate him for the damages which he suffered due to breach.
Arguments by Defendant
The defendant argued that the plaintiff cannot bring the suit before the due date of the contract. He said that the due date was yet to commence so the plaintiff cannot sue him until the date to execute the contract arrives.
Judgement
The court held that if even before the commencement date of the contract the party refuses to perform the terms of the contract he will be held liable for breach of the contract and it can’t be argued that the commencement date is still due. The defendant’s arguments were rejected that the party shall be ready to commence the contract any time before the due date and no suit can be brought before that. It was also said that if one party withdraws from the obligations of the contract the obligations of the second party is implied terminated. The reason for the due date yet to arrive cannot be given in the case the party can institute suit as soon as the party renunciate the contract and refuses to perform the promise.
Read full details: https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/contracts/contracts-keyed-to-farnsworth/performance-and-breach/hochster-v-de-la-tour/
Amar Nath Vs. Bharat Heavy Electrical
Facts
In this case, the appellate did some construction work for the respondent company for a certain amount which was to be paid after the work was done. The appellate did the work and was paid by the respondent but the amount which was paid, the appellate was not satisfied with the amount paid to him and accepted it by giving a receipt to the respondent that he was accepting it under protest and he is not satisfied with the amount given to him.
Issues Framed
- Whether the acceptance of the amount by the appellate under protest discharges the contract?
Contention
Arguments by Plaintiff
That he accepted the amount by giving receipt and was not satisfied with the amount paid to him and he should be rendered the amount which he deserves for the work he did for the respondent.
Arguments by Defendant
The defendant argued that he paid the amount to the appellate which he accepted and the contract was discharged by performance when he accepted the payment made to him for the work.
Judgement
The court held that the amount accepted by the appellate was under protest and not exhaustively accepted hence the contract cannot be termed discharged and it was still to be completed with the original terms and conditions. For constituting valid discharge of contract there shouldn’t be any conditions or opposition of the terms of the contract. It should be accepted as it is.
Read full judgement: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/552509/
D.D.A. Vs. Joint Action Committee
Facts
The plaintiff, in this case, is the Delhi Development Authority who develops houses and allot to all groups of people under different six schemes in which the prices of the flats vary. The flats in South Delhi were more expensive and a surcharge of 20% was levied on them. There was a different cost for a different area which was calculated based on the area in which the flat is located which was termed discriminatory by the defendant and payment of current cost from the defaulter registrants was also demanded which was also opposed by the defendant. The appellate also intended to alter the terms of the allotment without giving notice of the same to the allottee
Issues Framed
- Whether the action of the Development Authority in levying a 20% surcharge from the registrants of South Delhi is justified?
- Whether demand for payment of current cost as calculated by the Delhi Development Authority from the defaulter registrants could be said to be justified?
Contention
Arguments by Plaintiff
The plaintiff contended that the charges based on locality were justified and the surcharge laid by them was according to the locality
Arguments by defendant
The defendant said that the charges imposed by the appellate were not justified and they were not communicated to them at the time of entering into the contract and the charges were added by alteration which led to novation of the contract which was not mutually agreed by the parties hence it was not valid.
Judgement
The stand taken by DDA itself is that the relationship between the parties arises out of the contract. The terms and conditions therefore were, therefore, required to be complied with by both the parties. Terms and conditions of the contract can indisputably be altered or modified. They cannot, however, be done unilaterally unless there exists any provision either in the contract itself or in law. It was held that the surcharge of 20% and the cost of construction by issuing office order after allotment was held unjustified and improper and the same was dismissed by the court. The D.D.A. relying on or based on the purported office orders which were not backed by any Statute, new terms of the contract could not be thrust upon the allottees, the court held.
Read full details: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1921640/
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v MKJ Corporation
Facts
This case defined the novation of contract and the ways by which it can be done. Here the contract was discharged by novation and the terms were altered. In this case, there was a strike of employees which resulted in spoilage of the leather which they were dealing in, the defendant sued the appellate for the spoilage of leather due to the employees strike and claimed the amount of damage suffered to him.
Issues Framed
- Whether the conditions which were altered by the novation of the contract were valid?
CONTENTION
Arguments by Plaintiff
It was said that there was no extensive mention about the condition of employees strike to claim the damages and the plaintiff contended that there was no mutual consent or agreement for this condition to be added as it was not mentioned in the original contract. Leather spoilage due to strike was not a condition in the contract to claim damages and they were not liable to pay it.
Arguments by Defendant
Arguments given by the defendant was that their contract impliedly mentions the condition for claiming damages for spoilage of the product and hence they have entitled damages which they suffered due to strike.
Judgement
It was held that even in good faith also in terms of the contract, no material alteration can be made by a party without the consent of the other. When one or more of the terms of the contract is/are altered by mutual consent of the parties to the contract, is called alteration of a contract. There cannot be any addition made to the contract unless it is mutually agreed upon by both the contracting parties. Hence, the claims of the defendant were dismissed and damages were not provided to them.
Read full details: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1280469/
Hart v Art V O’Connor
Facts
In this case, the defendant was old and was of unsound mind which was not known to the plaintiff and not being aware of his unsound mind he initiated fair negotiations and bought his farmland with the help of the solicitor of the defendant. The plaintiff bought and improved the land after which the brother of the defendant took over the trustee estate and set aside the contract made by the defendant and the plaintiff. The brother of the defendant was successful at the trial to which the plaintiff appealed.
Issues framed
Whether the contract made with the unsound defendant without knowing his condition was valid and constitutional.
Contention
Arguments by Plaintiff
The plaintiff argued that the condition of the defendant was not known to him hence the contract was not valid for constitutionality and the contract was made with fraudulent intent.
Arguments by defendant
That the defendant was represented by the person who knew his real condition and at the time of initiating contract he was implicated as a sound person and there was no fraud made and the contract was not unfair.
Judgement
The judgement by the court was that the negotiation and the contract made in good faith without the knowledge of the condition of the defendant was voidable and the court held mentioning that the defendant lacked contracting capacity while entering into a contract and he was not a competent party to make a contract but as the party appears to be of sound mind and represented by the person who knew his condition was held valid and the contract cannot be held unfair based on the knowledge of the party. The contract does not amount to fraud and it was not unfair.
Read full details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hart_v_O%27Connor
Central London Property v High Trees House
The defendant leased property from the plaintiff in which multiple flats were to be given on rent to different people but as that time World War 2 was going on the occupancy in the flats was not fully acquired so the defendant and the plaintiff made an agreement to pay half of the lease amount but the date till when the half amount is to be paid was not specifically mentioned in the agreement. After some time the war was over and the flats were fully acquired so the plaintiff demanded full payment of the rent but the defendant argued that there was no definite period which was defined in the agreement and the same was challenged by the plaintiff. It was held that with the help of the shreds of evidence that the half rent was to be paid till the war ends and after the defendant has to pay the full rent. Denning J stated that the cases showed that a promise which the promisor knew was going to be acted on by the person to whom it was made was enforceable despite a lack of consideration. The time had come for this to be recognized as giving rise to an estoppel.
Read full details: https://casebrief.fandom.com/wiki/Central_London_Property_Trust_Ltd._v_High_Trees_House_Ltd.
Nash v Inman
In this case, the plaintiff was a tailor who supplied goods(waistcoats) to the defendant who was a minor at the time of taking the clothes. After taking the waistcoats the minor refused to pay for the same. The tailor brought suit against him for recovery of the amount owed to him. The question in the was whether the coats which were delivered to minor comes under the category necessity of minor and whether the contract was enforceable or not. The plaintiff was not able to prove that the clothes delivered to him came under the category of necessity thus the judgement was given in the favour of the defendant and the contract was held void ab initio. “An infant, like a lunatic, is incapable of making a contract of purchase in the strict sense of the words; but if a man satisfies the needs of the infant or lunatic by supplying to him necessaries, the law will imply an obligation to repay him for the services so rendered, and will enforce that obligation against the estate of the infant or lunatic.”
Read full details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_v_Inman
Bowdell v Parsons
In this case, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a contract for the trading of goods the transaction of which has to be done on a future basis. The defendant in this case who was to sell the goods on a future date to the plaintiff sold the same goods to another man without informing the plaintiff about the same. The plaintiff sued the defendant for breaching the terms to which the defendant argued that the due date was yet to come. The court held that if a person enters into a contract to sell and deliver goods on a future date and he sells and delivers them to another then he is immediately liable for infringement and the party to whom the goods were supposed to be delivered and the party can bring action against the party.
Read full details: https://vlex.co.uk/vid/bowdell-against-parsons-802712205
H Dakin & Co LTD V Lee
In this case, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement in which the plaintiff promised to make the house of the defendant according to the specification mentioned in the agreement and to follow all the instructions given by the defendant to make the house. The plaintiff failed to make the house according to the conditions specified by the defendant not wholly but partially to which the defendant refused to pay the amount for the work which was half done. The plaintiff claimed the amount for the work which was partially completed by them. The court held that the builder who was the plaintiff were entitled to recover the contract price, less much as ought to be allowed in respect of the items found not to be in accordance with the specifications made by the defendant.
Read full details: https://www.scribd.com/document/133707618/H-Dakin-Co-Ltd-v-Lee
Condor v The Baron Knights
In this case, the claimant and the defendant entered into a contract in which the claimant was to play for the band for 7 nights a week for 5 years but after some time the claimant suffered a mental breakdown due to which his doctor suggested he not play band for more than 4 nights per week as more than that will have repercussion on his health. As the original contract was to play for 7 nights a week and the claimant was not able to perform more than 4 nights the band dismissed him and nullified the contract. The claimant brought a suit against the defendant that the termination was wrongful and he should be retained by the band. The decision made by the court was that as the claimant was not able to perform the condition of the contract and his medical conditions made it impossible to constitute the contract thus the contract was frustrated and his claim was rejected.
Read full details: https://www.studocu.com/en-gb/document/university-of-nottingham/employment-law/condor-v-barron-knights-1966/12162173