Introduction to Introduction to Contract Contract
Mar 30, 2015
Introduction to Introduction to ContractContract
Introduction to Introduction to ContractContract
JOIN KHALID AZIZ• ECONOMICS OF ICMAP, ICAP, MA-ECONOMICS,
B.COM.• FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING OF ICMAP STAGE 1,3,4
ICAP MODULE B, B.COM, BBA, MBA & PIPFA.• COST ACCOUNTING OF ICMAP STAGE 2,3 ICAP
MODULE D, BBA, MBA & PIPFA.
• CONTACT:• 0322-3385752• 0312-2302870• R-1173,ALNOOR SOCIETY, BLOCK 19,F.B.AREA,
KARACHI, PAKISTAN
Classical contract theory: 3 threads
• Contract is a bargain
• Will of parties [consensus ad idem-agreement]
• Freedom of Contract is paramount
Development of Contract Law: Principles
• Law of obligations [vinculum juris]
Moral obligations contractual obligations
• Law of unjust enrichment
• Law of restitution [Injurious reliance]
Courts in EnglandWrit of performance
Writ of debt Writ of covenant writ of deceit
Quid pro quo
Pacta sunt servanda
Freedom of contract ?
• ‘Contract as an instrument of free bargaining between parties on the basis of equality’
Freedom: Need ?• To determine the primary
obligations of parties
• To understand the inequality of bargaining power
• To understand public utilities
Means of contract• Formal and Informal contracts• Bilateral and Unilateral contracts
Contractual terms: Formation
Performance
• Contract may be oral or written. • Representation
Express Implied Intermediate terms
• Terms/ Expressed in writing
Conditions/warranties Implied by Statute terms by customary usage Standard form of
contract
Object of Law of contract
• To avoid litigation
• To establish set of rules for compliance
• To penalize defaulters
Point of Legality• Valid Contract• Void Agreements : sec. 2(g)• Voidable contracts:• Illegal contracts
Law of torts and Contract
• Misfeasance• Malfeasance• Nonfeasance
Would an action stand in Tort when the Contract is
silent• Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club v Black pool Borough
Council 1990 WLR 1195 • Reid v Rush Tompkin Group 1990: Car accident
case.• Winterbottom v Wright 1842 152 Eng Rep 402
Digital contractsDigital contractsDigital contractsDigital contracts
Issues• Conceptual framework • Rules governing e-contracts• I T 2000• Digital signature• E-auction
Issues in E-contract• California Software Inc v Reliability Research
Inc, 1356 [C D Cal, 1986]• Beta Computers Ltd v Adobe Systems Ltd 1996
FSR 367• TCS v State of A. P• European Commission and ‘Product liability’ • Shrink wrap• Click-Wrap
– ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir., 1996
Outsourcing Contract• Issues• Sections 13, 15 and 44A of the Indian
Civil Procedure Code and Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act, govern the conclusiveness and enforcement of foreign judgments in India
• Liability of a software developer
Problems with E-contract
• Taxing E-commerce • Copyright or Patent of
software ? • UK Electronic Commerce Act 2002• Limitation of Digital Contracts
Indian PartnershipIndian PartnershipIndian PartnershipIndian Partnership
Essentials of Firm• 1. Association of two or more persons• 2. In pursuance of an agreement or contract• Re Fisher and Sons 1912 2 KB 491: difference
between Co-owners and partners • 3. To combine property, labor or skill• 4. In a business
– New Mofussil Co v Rustomji 1936– Coope v Eyre 1788
• 5. Carried on by all or any one of them on behalf of all– Firm name/Property– Miles v Clarke 1953 1 ALL ER 779
• 6. With a View to share Profits• Daulat Ram v Dharm Chand AIR 1934 Lah 110
Minor Partner• Sec. 30(1): ‘A person who is a minor according to the law
to which he is subject may not be a partner in a firm, but with the consent of all partners for the time being, may be admitted to the benefits of partnership’
– A A Khan v Amer Karium AIR 1952 Mys 131– Lachmi Narain v Beni Ram, AIR 1931 ALL 327
• Rights of minor: Questions– Tulsi das v Gangaram AIR 1925 Sund 272– Satya Narain v Juggal Kishore AIR 1958 All 312]
• Minor’s liabilities sec. 30(3)(5)(7)(9)– Sanyasi Charan Mandal v Asutosh Ghose 1915
42 Cal 225– CIT v Vijay Kumar Rajesh
• Liability of a minor after attaining majority
Types of partnership• Partnership at will :
– M O H Uduman v Ashurn AIR 1991 SC 1020:
– Karumuthu Thiagarajan Chettiar v Muthappa Chettiar AIR 1961 SC 1225
• Partnership for a fixed term• Particular partnership : • Limited Partnership : • Partnership by Holding out
– Sleeping partner– Nominal partner– Working partners
Rights of a partner• 1. Joint ownership of partnership property• 2. Right to take part in the management [sec. 12]
– Suresh Kumar v Amrit Kumar AIR 1982 Del 131– Right to Express opinion [sec. 12 c]
Lord Fldon in Const v Harris 1824 said “for a majority of partners to say, we do not care what one partner may say, we being the majority will do what we please is what a court of equity will not allow’.
– Dismissal of a servant– New business– Blisset v Daniel 1853
• 3. Access accounts and act during emergency– Re Martindale ex Truman 1832
4. Right to profit– Mansa Ram v Tej Bhan AIR 1958 Punj 5 – Delhi Veopar Mandal v IT Commissioner
AIR 1967– Dawood Sahib v Sheik Mohiuddin Sahib
AIR 1938
• 5. No claim for interest of capital
• 6. Right to indemnity sec. 13(e)– Thomas v Atherton 1877
Rights of partners• 6. Right not to be expelled• 7. No new partner to be introduced:
right to prevent• 8. No liability before joining unless
with consent and expressly stated in the deed
• 9. Right to retire: 3 ways
Nature of Liability of partners
• Joint and several: sec. 25: every partner is liable jointly with all the other partners and also severally for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner’
• Test– Benefit of the partnership– Within the scope of authority
– Malyn v John Houston 1903 1 KB 81– Moreton v Harden 1825– Citizens Life Assurance v Brown 1905– R W Pathirana v Pathirana 1967 1 AC 233
Nature of Implied Authority
• 1. Authority to purchase and sell– Bond v Gibson [1808]
• 2. power to recover money due to firm/ borrow money on credit: – Higgins v Beauchamp 1914 2 KR 1992:
• 3. Authority to engage lawyers• 4. Authority to insure firm goods
Conditions for application of Implied authority
• 1. Act must be done in the capacity of a partner: – Gouthwaite v Duckworth [1810 104 ER
174]:
• 2. Act must be done on behalf of the firm and not on personal behalf
• 3. Act must relate to activities within the scope of business
• 4. Act must be done in the firms name
Does implied authority vary acc/ to type of
partnership• LLP, Will the concept of mutual
agency continue ?
Dissolution
• Of partnership of Firm
End of the term completion of business by death/insolvency by retirement
Dissolution of Firm• Without Court
– By Agreement– Compulsory dissolution– Dissolution on contingency– By notice
• By Court– Persistent misconduct or disregard to
partnership agreement– Unsoundness of partners– Business at loss
– Jurisdiction of the Courts to try dissolutionMD Hassen Hashmi v Kaberi Roy AIR 1993 Cal 70
Winding Up• Right to continue business• Good will• Restraint of trade
What is a proposal/offer
• ‘I think I like your car and will try to buy it’
• I saw an advertisement for the sale of your car, will you sell your car to me?
• ‘I am willing to buy your car for a reasonable price’.
• Are these Offer ?
Invitation to Treat• Advertisements: General Offer• Display of goods for sale• Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256 • Harvey v Facey [1893] AC 552
– ‘Will you sell us Bumper Hall pen, telegraph at what price’
– ‘lowest price for the pen is 100’
• Powell v Lee [1908] 99 L Y 284• MC Pherson v Appanna [AIR 1951 SC 184]
– ‘wont accept less than 10,000’.
Modes of Offer
• Time table
• Tenders and Auctions [Harris v Nickerson]
• Restaurant menu card
• ATM or vending machines
Offer: Communication• Gibbons v Proctor 1891 64 LTN S 594 [Reward
for a criminal]• Lalman Sukla v Gouri Dutt 1913ALJ 4891
[Missing boys case]• Tim v Hoffman 1873, 29 L T 271: cross offer is
no offer
• Counter Offer• Proposal must be made to another person
Termination of Offer• ‘An offer can be withdrawn at any time
before it is accepted’.• Distinction between lapse of offer and
revocation• Notice, Death, incapacity, lapse of time • Errington v Errington [1952] Father promises
to son and daughter in law that if they pay mortgage amount
of the property, the property would be theirs
Acceptance• Acceptance must be in toto: Mirror Image Rule • Manner/mode of acceptance [sec. 7]
By an act promise• Is Silence an acceptance ?
– Felthouse v Bindley 1862 11 CB 869.: Uncle tells his nephew– ‘If I hear no more from you, the horse in mine’.– The nephew during an auction stated to the auctioneer to reserve the
horse for his uncle• Silence and thereafter a ‘conduct’ of acceptance ?
– LIC of India v Vasireddy AIR 1984 SC 1014– 27th Dec. 1960 filing of proposal for LIC– Proposer died on 12th Jan 1961
• Can Acceptance be revoked ?
Acceptance: contd• Is Communication of Acceptance essential?• Acceptance through post: Mailbox rule
– Adams v Lindsell [1818 1 B& Ald. 681.- 2/9/1817, defendants offered to sell a quantity of wool at a
certain price and expected the answer by post, the letter reached the plaintiff on 5th, the same day, he posted the acceptance, which reached the defendants on 9th.
- The defendants waited till 7th and on 8th sold the same wool to another person
- Is there an acceptance ?
• Who can communicate the acceptance ?• When is a unilateral contract accepted ?
When does the mailbox rule apply?
• Q. Is revocation of acceptance possible ?
• Henthorn v Fraser 1892– Secretary signed a note giving option to purchase for 14
days at P-750, next day withdraws through post at 12-1.00 pm, claimant posts the acceptance on the same day between 3-4 pm.
• Which ever communication reaches first is valid
Offer and Acceptance: Where the contract is
made?• It determines the time of forming the
contract• It stipulates the jurisdiction of the
court; and • It affixes the rights and obligations of
parties
• Is the contract complete at the instance and place of the acceptor or offeror?
Invitation to Treat• Advertisements: General Offer• Display of goods for sale• Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256 • Harvey v Facey [1893] AC 552
– ‘Will you sell us Bumper Hall pen, telegraph at what price’
– ‘lowest price for the pen is 100’
• Powell v Lee [1908] 99 L Y 284• MC Pherson v Appanna [AIR 1951 SC 184]
– ‘wont accept less than 10,000’.
Modes of Offer
• Time table
• Tenders and Auctions [Harris v Nickerson]
• Restaurant menu card
• ATM or vending machines
Termination of Offer• ‘An offer can be withdrawn at any time
before it is accepted’.• Distinction between lapse of offer and
revocation• Notice, Death, incapacity, lapse of time • Errington v Errington [1952] Father promises
to son and daughter in law that if they pay mortgage amount
of the property, the property would be theirs
Acceptance• Acceptance must be in toto: Mirror Image Rule • Manner/mode of acceptance [sec. 7]
By an act promise• Is Silence an acceptance ?
– Felthouse v Bindley 1862 11 CB 869.: Uncle tells his nephew– ‘If I hear no more from you, the horse in mine’.– The nephew during an auction stated to the auctioneer to reserve the
horse for his uncle• Silence and thereafter a ‘conduct’ of acceptance ?
– LIC of India v Vasireddy AIR 1984 SC 1014– 27th Dec. 1960 filing of proposal for LIC– Proposer died on 12th Jan 1961
• Can Acceptance be revoked ?
Acceptance: contd• Is Communication of Acceptance essential?• Acceptance through post: Mailbox rule
– Adams v Lindsell [1818 1 B& Ald. 681.- 2/9/1817, defendants offered to sell a quantity of wool at a
certain price and expected the answer by post, the letter reached the plaintiff on 5th, the same day, he posted the acceptance, which reached the defendants on 9th.
- The defendants waited till 7th and on 8th sold the same wool to another person
- Is there an acceptance ?
• Who can communicate the acceptance ?• When is a unilateral contract accepted ?
When does the mailbox rule apply?
• Q. Is revocation of acceptance possible ?
• Henthorn v Fraser 1892– Secretary signed a note giving option to purchase for 14
days at P-750, next day withdraws through post at 12-1.00 pm, claimant posts the acceptance on the same day between 3-4 pm.
• Which ever communication reaches first is valid
Offer and Acceptance: Where the contract is
made?• It determines the time of forming the
contract• It stipulates the jurisdiction of the
court; and • It affixes the rights and obligations of
parties
• Is the contract complete at the instance and place of the acceptor or offeror?
Chapter-3: Capacity to Contract
• Two kind of ‘persons’– Natural– Legal or juristic person
• Natural Person
Latent incapacity patent incapacity[infancy, unsoundness, lunacy] [B’cos of Status:
insolvency, alien enemy, Married]
Legal person
• Ultra vires winding up any other
Acts of sovereign, Corporate and companies
Liability of Minors in Contract
• Sec. 68: ‘if a person, incapable of entering into a contract is supplied with necessaries in life, the person who supplies is entitled to be reimbursed’
• Doyle v White City Stadium 1935 1 KB 110,
Insanity/lunacy• Inder Singh v Parmeshardhni
Singh AIR 1957 Pat. 49• Mathews v Baxter [1873, L R 8 Ex.
132]
Other Incapacities• Political Status
– Alien enemy– Foreign sovereigns and ambassadors
• Mighell v Sultan of Johore [1894, 1 QB 149] • [Also see sec. 86 of CPC which provides that in case of suit
against a foreign sovereign, the consent of the Central Govt is required]
• Corporation– Ashbury Railways Carriage Co. V Riche 1875, 7 HL
653. [an agreement for purchase of railways which was not mentioned in the MOA was held ultra vires]
– Q. Does Ultra vires means void contract ? Are third parties protected from such ultra vires acts ?
Other Incapacities• Married Status• Professional status: can an advocate
sue in contract, his client for fee ?
Chapter 4: Consideration
• Sec. 10 requires Lawful consideration as an essential factor for giving enforceability to an agreement.
• Sec. 25 an agreement without consideration is void [nudum pactum]
• Sec. 23 and 24 deal with circumstances in which the consideration will be treated unlawful
What is consideration• Money [need not be adequate]• An act, abstinence or promise• Must be real [White v Bluett] • Performance of a legal duty is no
consideration
Why Consideration ?• Consideration only at the desire of the promisor
– Durga Prasad v Baldeo [Building a market place at the order of the Collector, Defendants, a tenant made a promise to pay, later refused, was held not liable to pay]
• Consideration by the promisee or any other person– Chinnaya v Ramaya [old lady granted an estate to the daughter
with a direction that the daughter should pay an annuity of Rs 653 to the lady’s brother. On the same day the daughter executed a promise to pay to the mother’s brother Rs 653. She failed and claimed that the brother had not given any consideration. Held: consideration by the mother is enough consideration]
• Consideration may be Past, Present or Future• Privity of contract
– A person may not give any consideration, but is a party to the contract may enforce the contract
– A stranger to a contract cannot sue : Suppose A and B enter into a contract for the benefit of C. The agreement between and A and B cannot be enforced by C.
– Tweddle v Atksinson : two father entered into an agreement to pay a new couple money on their marriage. The couple cannot sue for enforcement of the contract between the fathers.
Exceptions• Law of Trust/ Insurance
– Klause Mittelbachert v East India Hotels [pilot, head injuries during a dive at the swimming pool, contract between Lufthansa and hotel Oberoi, can the pilot claim damages, though the consideration was not moving from him ?]
• Conduct, Acknowledgment or Admission– Narayani Devi v Tagore Commercial Corporation [If the
defendants start the payment and then withdraws]• Provision for marriage expenses or maintenance under
family arrangement/– Veeramma v Appayya [daughter agreed to take care of the
father for which the father promised to convey property to her. Later when the father refused, the daughter sued successfully.
– Sundaraja Aiyangar v Lakshmiammal [partition deed between brothers to provide for marriage expenses of the sister, is enforceable by the sister]
• Subscription for a charitable purpose– Kedar Nath v Gorie Mahomed
Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel
• Central London Property trust Ltd V High Trees House Ltd 1947 KB 130.
• Rule in Pinnel Case [promise to pay less than the due amount] – D&C Builders v Rees 1966 2 QB 617– M P Sugar Mills v State of U PAIR 1979 SC 621
• Forbearance to sue is good consideration
When Agreement without consideration is valid
• Natural love and affection• Compensation for past voluntary
services• Promise to pay a time barred debt• Creation of Agency does not
require consideration
Free Consent• Coercion: committing or threatening to
commit an act forbidden by IPC– Ranganayakamma v Alwar Setti [Adoption of son
by a widow]– Chikkan Ammiraju v Chikkam Seshama [Threat to
commit suicide]
• Economic duress– B& S Contracts & Designs v Victor Green Publications Ltd
1984 ICR 419 [erecting a stand, contractor claimed labour strike and increased amount]
Undue Influence: a Specie of fraud
• Taking of unfair advantage [sec. 16]• Misuse of influence• Abuse of trust and confidence• Connotation of impropriety
Classes of undue influence
Actual presumed undue influence
Based on proof
What constitute undue influence
• Relationship of parties is such that one party is in a position to dominate the will of the other.
Real and apparent authority fiduciary relationship mental capacity, age, illness
• The party in the dominating position uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage
Presumption of undue influence: position of domination
• Parent and child• Guardian and ward• Trustee and beneficiary• Solicitor and client• Doctor and patient• Spiritual adviser and disciple
• The list does not include husband and wife nor does it include principal and agent, banker and customer or teacher and student
Illustration• Tate v Williamson 1866 LR 2 Ch.
App 55• Allcard v Skinner 1887 36 Ch.d
145
Rebutting the presumption of undue
influence• Whether the victim had independent and qualified
advise ?– Solicitors must give fair and disinterested advise– He must ensure that the decision of his client is proper and
to his benefit
• The victim understood the nature and consequences of the transaction ?– Disclosure of material facts
• Whether he was able to arrive at independent and informed decision/judgment.– Objective and conduct of parties
Fraud• False statement of facts• Mere silence is no fraud
– Duty to speak by law• P Sarojam v LIC [aliments were not disclosed in
the form]• Rajinder Singh v Pomilla [premartial status of a
party was a material fact]
– Active concealment• Shri Krishna v Kurukshetra University
Misrepresentation
• Fraudulent Negligent Innocent
Rescind claim damages[tort] no claim
Misrepresentation
Conditions [sec 12 (2) of the Sale of goods Act] Warranties
• A representation is a statement made at the time of the contract by way of affirmation, denial or description or presentation of a material fact to contract.
• It is more than the intention of parties and different from opinion– Smith v Land & House Property Corp (1884) 28 Ch D 7– The plaintiff put up his hotel for sale stating that it was let to a 'most desirable
tenant'. The defendants agreed to buy the hotel. The tenant was bankrupt. As a result, the defendants refused to complete the contract and were sued by the plaintiff for specific performance. The Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff's statement was not mere opinion, but was one of fact.
Representation• Must relate to fact and not law• Must relate to Fact and promise• There must be a representation or assertion• It must be made with the knowledge that it is false or without
belief in its truth• It must be acted upon• Damages must be suffered: No fraud no damages [sec. 17 read
with sec. 19 of ICA]
• Ex: Prospectus of a company• Sec. 55 of the TP Act requires the seller of immovable propery
to disclose to the buyer material defects in the property
Implied representation• Spice Girls v Aprilia World Service BV 2002 Ch D
– A entered an contract for endorsing product [scooter] with Spice Girls [a group of 5]. Within two weeks, ‘Ginger spice’ left the group, making the product vulnerable in the market. The Pop group did not disclose this to the Agency.
– Was the group split before endorsement ?– Was there an intention to split ? – Was there a misrepresentation that the group was together ?
– Held misrepresentation. [Carbolic smoke ball company]
Void agreementsVoid agreementsVoid agreementsVoid agreements
Mistake
Of Law Of Fact
Of ordinary law of foreign law of pvt rights
As to nature of contract as to persons contracted with as to subject matter
Mistake• 1. Mistake when there is no consensus ad idem
[Raffles v Wichelhuas 1864 ]• 2. Mistake as to a matter of fact essential to the
agreement– [sec. 20] Ayekam Angahal Singh v UOI Air 1970
• 3. Mistake of Law – Lakshman Prasad and Sons v Achuthan Nair AIR 1955 Mad
652
• 4. Mistake on subject matter: – Leaf v International Galleries [1950] 1 All ER 693
• 5. Mistake as to possibility of performance of the contract – Sheikh Bros v Ochsner 1957 AC 136 ---- Griffith v
Brymer (1903) 19 TLR 434• 6. Mistake as to identity of parties
– Boulton v Jones 1857--- Said v Butt 1920
Mistake: New developments
• Contract made inter praesentes – Phillips v Brooks 1919 – Ingram v Little [1960] 3 All ER 332
– Bell v Lever Bros Ltd. [1932 AC 161]
• Plea of ‘Non est factum’– Dularia Devi v Janardan Singh AIR
1990 SC 1173
Legality of object and Consideration
• 1. It is forbidden by law – Universal Plast Ltd v Santosh Kumar AIR 1985
• 2. Defeat the provision of any law – Ram Sewak v Ram AIR 1962 All 177 -Abdul Piojkhan Nabab v Hussenbi 1904
• 3. Injurious to person or property – Gurmukh Singh v Amar Singh 1991 2 SCC 79
• 4. Agreement Injurious to public policy – Sukha v Ninni AIR 1966 - Punnakotiah v Kallapalli Kolikamba AIR
1967 AP --- Mewa Ram v Ram Gopal ILR 1926• 5. Immoral
– Pearce v Brooks 1866-- Bai Viji v Nansa Nagar 1885 ----Narayani v Pyare Mohan AIR 1927
• 6. Agreement opposed to public policy Sec. 23– Trading with an enemy– Trafficking in public offices– Interference with the administration of justice– Marriage brokerage contracts: Herman v Charlesworth 1905 2 KB
123
Void Agreements• 1. Agreement in restraint of marriage: sec. 26
– Rao Rani v Gulab Rani AIR 1942• 2. Agreement in restraint of trade [sec. 27]
– Herbert Morris Ltd Saxelby 1916– Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Co
1894– Gujarat Bottling Co v Coca Cola Company Air 1995 SC 2372
• Exception to an agreement in restraint of trade– 1. Sale of Good will– 2. Exception under Indian Partnership Act– 3. Restraint by a contract of service [employment]
• Niranjan Shankar v Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co AIR 1967
• 4. Trade combinations– Sheikh Kalu v Ram Sharan Bhagat 1909 13 CNN 388
• 5. Agreement in restraint of legal proceedings: sec. 28– Ghose v Reliance Insurance Co 1934
• 6. Wagering Contracts
Quasi Contracts• 1. Claim for necessaries supplied to a person
incompetent to contract [sec. 68]• 2. Reimbursement of money paid due by another
– Exall v Patridge 1799 – Bansidhar Joshi v Chandrakumar AIR 1964 All 348
• 3. Obligation of person enjoying benefit of non-gratuitous act: [sec. 70]– Indu Mehta v State of UP AIR 1987 ALL 309
• 4. Enjoyment of benefit by the defendant is necessary:– P C Wadhwa v State of Punjab AIR 1987 PH 117
• 5. Finder of Lost goods: sec. 71
Discharges/ Remedies under Law of Contract
• 1. Performance of contract• 2. Quantum meruit
Performance of Contract
• Every such offer must fulfill the following conditions:-• 1) it must be unconditional
– Navin Chandra v Yogendra Nath
• 2) it must be made at a proper time and place– Start-up v Macdonald 1843
• 3) under such circumstances that the person to whom it is made may have a reasonable opportunity for inspection– Performance on death of a party– Performance by the promisor or his agent or representatives.
• 4) An offer to one of several joint promisees has the same legal consequences as an offer to all of them.
Remedies for Breach Remedies for Breach of Contractof Contract
Remedies for Breach Remedies for Breach of Contractof Contract
The Law• Indian Contract Act 1872• Specific Relief Act • Law of obligation
– Law of Unjust enrichment– Law of Restitution
Plea• Non est factum
– Gallie v Lee
• Specific Performance/substantial performance – Dakin v Lee
• When ‘time’ is the essence of the contract: Right to rescind the contract– R K Saxena v Delhi Development Authority AIR 2002 SC 2340
• Impossibility of Performance– Taylor v Caldwell (1863) 3 B&S 826
• Doctrine of Frustation– Arti Sukhdev Kashyap v Daya Kishore Arora AIR 1994
Discharge of Contract• Bilateral discharge
– Accord and satisfaction– RESCISSION AND SUBSTITUTION and
Novation– VARIATION– WAIVER
Breach of contract• Anticipatory breach
– Hochster v De La Tour
• Liability of loss only due to CAUSATION [carpenter left the door unlocked]
• Remoteness of damages
• Mitigation of loss
Breach• Rectification and cancellation of
Instrument• Damages
– Nominal– Penalty
• Injunction– Temporary– Permanent
JOIN KHALID AZIZ• ECONOMICS OF ICMAP, ICAP, MA-ECONOMICS,
B.COM.• FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING OF ICMAP STAGE 1,3,4
ICAP MODULE B, B.COM, BBA, MBA & PIPFA.• COST ACCOUNTING OF ICMAP STAGE 2,3 ICAP
MODULE D, BBA, MBA & PIPFA.
• CONTACT:• 0322-3385752• 0312-2302870• R-1173,ALNOOR SOCIETY, BLOCK 19,F.B.AREA,
KARACHI, PAKISTAN