Rose Janet Ayugi-Masinde – Contracts II Course Outline

UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI

SCHOOL OF LAW

GPR 108 CONTRACTS II

COURSE CONTENT

Vitiating factors, Contracts in Restraint of trade, Remedies, Discharge of contract, quasi-contract; interaction of tort and contract, and conflict of laws, Contracts I is a prerequisite.

POSSIBLE READING

  1. Chitty on Contracts (2004), Volume I, General Principles Volume II, Specific Contracts Thomson, Sweet and Maxwell, London.
  2. Richards, Paul (2002) Law of Contract, Dorset Press, Dorchester
  3. J.C. Smith. (1998). The Law of Contract: Fundamental Principles of Law”, 3rd ed. London, Sweet and Maxwell.
  4. Trietel G. H. (2003). The Law of Contract Thomson, Sweet and Maxwell.
  5. Atiyah, P. S. (4995) An Introduction to the Law of Contract (5th ed.) Clarendon Law series, Oxford.
  6. Beale, H. Bishop, W. et al (1990). Contract: Cases and Materials. (2nd e.d) Buttersworth, London.
  7. Smith, J.C.& Thomas J (1982). A Case book on Contract 7th ed. London, Sweet and Maxwell.
  8. Hodgin, R.W. (1975) Law of Contract in East Africa. Kenya Literature Bureau.

TOPIC ONE: VITIATING FACTORS/FAULTS IN CONTRACTS

  • Effects of faults in Contracts
  • Void – mistake, illegal contracts
  • Voidable – misrepresentation and capacity
  • Unenforceable – absence of some requirement, e.g. written evidence.

Vitiating Factors

  1. Misrepresentation
  2. Mistake
  3. Duress
  4. Undue influence
  5. Illegal contracts

TOPIC 2: DISCHARGE OF CONTRACTS

TOPIC 3: REMEDIES

TOPIC 1 : VITIATING FACTORS

A. DURESS

  • Introduction

Royal Bank of Scotland V Etridge (No.2) (2001) 4 All ER 499.

  • Threats to a person is obvious form of duress
  • Economic duress

The siboen and The sibotre (occidental worldwide Investment Corp V Skibs A/S Avanti) 1976

Atlas Express Ltd V Kafco (Importers and Distributors) Ltd., 1989

Language of the courts “Voluntariness”, “Consent” and “Overborne will”

  • Truly unwilled action is not relevant. DPP for Northern Ireland V Lynch (1975)
  • Real question is whether decision was made in unacceptable circumstances, Dimskal shipping Co., S.A. V International Transport Workers Federation, The Evia Luck (1991) 4 All ER 871
  • The test for the Existence of duress
  • Circumstances under which he decided to contract.
  • Whether other party had introduced an unacceptable element into those circumstances. Enimont Overseas AG V Rojugotanker Zadar, The Olib, (1991)2 Llyd’s Reg. 108
  • Illegitimacy of the threat, Universe Tankships Inc. of Monrovia V International Transport Workers Federation and Laughton (1983) 1 AC 366
  • Act is unlawful if criminal and or civil wrong e.g. branch of contract or tort.

In principle it is possible for duress to be based in a lawful threat.

CTN cash and carry Ltd V Gallaher, (1994) 4 All ER. 714.

Lack of reasonable alternative.

  • Second requirement where threat is not a criminal offence
  • Pao On V Lau Yiu Long (1980) AC 614,
  • Universe Tankships Inc of Monrovia V International Transport workers Federation (1983) AC 366. B & S Contracts and Design Ltd V Victor green Publications Ltd. (1984) 1 CR 419
  • “reasonable alternative” Vantage Navigation Corp. V Suhail and Saud Bahwan Building materials, The Alev (1989) 1 Llyd rep. 138
  • practical alternatives”
  • What constitutes a reasonable alternative?
  • Criticism of the reasonable alternative test- an alternative?

Did the person make the threat out of malice or bad faith?

  • Why a two stage test when a legal wrong has been threatened?

-Security of transactions

-Balancing of competing interests

-In criminal offence alternatives test inappropriate,

-Barton V Armstong (1976)

-Is the duress operative?

-To what degree did the threat induce the contract?, Barton V Armstong

-Threat significant cause of the contract.

-The Evia luck (1992) 2 AC 152

  • Rescission

Right to rescind may be lost by affirmation

North Ocean shipping V Hyundai Construction Co. Ltd., (1978) 3 ALL ER.1170

B. UNDUE INFLUENCE

Introduction

  • Overlap between duress and undue influence
  • Subtle difference based on relationship between the parties.
  • Royal Bank of Scotland V Eltridge (No.2) (2001) 4 ALL ER 449
  • Allcard v Skinner (1887) 36 Ch. D 15
  • Actual and presumed undue influence.

Barclays Bank PLC v O’Brien (1963) 4 All ER 417

  • Modern context of use of undue influence (loan guarantee by wife to husband)
  • The right to rescind may be lost by affirmation Allcard v Skinner (1887)

Actual undue influence

  • Inappropriate exercise of influence arising out of the relationship.

Royal Bank of Scotland V Etridge (No.2) 2001 4 All ER 449

  • Bank of Credit and Commerce International S.A. V. Aboody (1989) Fam. Law 435
  • Absence of malign intent to cause detriment irrelevant.

Presumed Undue Influence

The types of presumptions (Type 2A and Type 2B)

  • Equity and the presumption of influence in special category of relationships.
  • Presumed as a mater of law not just evidentially
  • second presumption that is, that influence was exercised is an evidential presumption.
  • Second must relate to the transaction and can be rebutted.
  • 2nd type: Relationship between the parties involved relevant influence

-relationship of trust and confidence – fiduciary relationship.

  • Transaction must be one that ‘calls for an explanation’
  • Relationship between banker and customer Lloyds Bank Ltd V Bundy (1974) 3 All ER. 757.

National Westminister Bank PLC V Morgan (1985) 1 All ER 821

  • Transaction readily explicable as normal commercial loan
  • No requirement of ‘dominating influence’ Goldsworthy V Brickell (1987) 1 All ER 853

Transactions calling for an explanation

Allcard V Skinner

  • Large gift
  • Manifest Disadvantage National Westminister V Morgan
  • Husband guarantees

Difficulty in generating presumption of undue influence in husband and wife guarantee type of cases.

Royal Bank V Etridge

  • Rebutting the presumption of undue influence
  • Free, full informed choice Zamet V Hyman (1961) 3 All ER 933

Inche Noriah V Shaik Allie Bin Omar (1929) AR 127

  • Weight to be attached to independent advice Royal Bank of Scotland V Etridge
  • Undue influence and third parties
  • Examples from husband and wife situation, but not limited to this. Barclays Bank PLC V O’Brien (1993) 4 All ER 417
  • “Agency relationship”
  • “Constructive Notice”
  • “Put on inquiry”
  • transaction not to financial advantage of wife.
  • Substantial risk in transactions.
  • Situations outside the husband and wife context and outside context
  • surety transactions. Massey V Midland Bank PLC (1995)
  • Where couples not cohabiting
  • Where relationship between debtor and surety is non-commercial
  • Constructive notice CIBC Mortgages V Pitt (1993)
  • What can third parties do to prevent itself being fixed with constructive notice?

Barclays Bank V O’Brien

  • Confirmation by solicitor UCB Corporate Services Ltd V Williams (2002)

“appropriate advice”

  • Exceptional circumstances Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland NV-V-Burch. (1997) 1 All ER 144.

Other relevant cases. Hodgins R. W. Law of Contract.

  • Hassanali Issa and Co. V Jeraj Produce Store !967 E.A. 55
  • H.C. Pater V Pankay 5 Thakora (1965) EA 629

Ottoman Bank V K. S. (1965) EA. 464.

C. MISTAKE

Introduction

  • Common mistake
  • Mutual mistake
  • Unilateral mistake

Are contractual obligations absolute or can a party escape liability?

Narrow meaning of word “mistake” in contract law.

Clarion Ltd V National Provident Institution (2000)

  • Law takes a predominantly objective of agreement

Controvincial Estates Plc V Merchant Investors Assurance Co. Ltd (1983) Com LR 158

A.Agreement Mistakes

  • Mistakes as to identity(unilateral mistake)Shogun Finance Ltd VHudson (2003) All ER (D) 258

Identity or attributes? Cundy V Lindsay (1878)3 App. Cas. 459

Kings Norton Metal Co. V Edridge, Merret & Co. (1897) 14 TLR 98

“Is the distinction between identity and attributes not genuine”? Lewis V Avery (1972) IQB 198 Shegun Finance Ltd V Hudson

Parties dealing face to face

Phillips V Brooks Ltd. (1919) 2 ICB 243 Lake V Simmons (1927) AC. 487, IngramV Little (1961) 1 QB 31

  • Should the law permit some division of loss between two innocent parties? Lewis V Averay Shogun Finance V Hudson

Mistake as to the terms or subject matter of a contract (mutual mistake)

Objective principles in relation to parties at cross purposes Raffles V Wichelhaus (1864) 2 H & C 906 Scriven Bros V Hindley & Co. (1913) 3 KB. 564. Smith V Hughes (1871) LR. 6. QB. 592

Agreement mistake in equity

-equitable jurisdiction permits a more flexible approach. Malins V Freemen

(1837) Steward V Kennedy (1890) 15 App. Co. 75.

Patel V Ali (1984) Ch. 283 where the court refused to grant specific performance which is a discretienary remedy, on equitable grounds of hardship to the dependant. The vendor of the house had, since the sale, become disabled and heavily dependent for help on neighbours whom she would lose if she had to move. Goolding J. refused to grant specific performance, leaving the purchasers to their remedy in damages.

Court will not allow defendant to escape performance simply because he made a mistake. Tamplin V James (1879) 15 Ch. D. 215

Rectification is a another equitable remedy. Joscelyne V Nissen (1970) 2 QB 86 Riverside Properties Ltd., V Paul (1975) Ch. 133. Commission for the New Towns V Cooper (GB) Ltd. (1995) Oceanic Village V. Shirayama Shokusan Co. Ltd. (1999)

BCommon Mistake

Performability Mistake or Initial impossibility.

  • Mistake as to existence of subject matter. Galloway V Galloway (1914) Couturier V Hastie (1856) 5 HL Case 673

Assumption of risk of goods non-existent. McRae V Commonwealth Disposals Commission (1951) 84 CLR 377 Barrow, lane & Ballard Ltd V. Phillips & Co. Ltd. 1929 1 KB 574

Mistake as to quality of subject matter

Great peace shipping Ltd V Tsauliris salvage (International) Ltd 2003) QB. 679

Bell V Lever Bros 1932 AC. 161

Mistake as to the existence of some quality which makes the thing without the quality essentially different. Associated Japanese Bank (International) V Credit du Nord

  • Strict view of mistake at common Law. Leaf V International Galleries (1950) 2 KB 86 but see Associated Japanese Bank (International) V Credit do Nord SA:
  • A doctrine of common mistake of common law

The scope of common mistake. Great Peace Shipping Ltd. V Tsauliris Salvage (International) Ltd., (2002) EWCA AU. 1407 (2003) QB 679

Common Mistake in equity, William Sandall Plc V Cambridgeshire County Council (1994)

Contracts merely liable for setting aside in equity? Solle V Butcher (1950 1 KB 671 Bell V Lever Bros Great Peace Shipping

  • Further attempt to develop an equittable approach Grist V Bailey (1967) Ch. 532

Documents signed by Mistake

– L’Estrange V Graucobs______(1934) KB 394

  • Non Est Factum – not my deed. Thoroughgood’s Case (1582) Foster V Mackinnon (1869) LR. 4 CP. 704
  • Use of defence of non est factum strictly limited. Saunders V Anglia Building Society (Gallie V Lee) 1971) AC 1004
  • Party cannot rely on the defence where she acted carelessly. United Dominions Trust Ltd V Western (1976) QB 513
  • Where document radically different from what it was supposed to be. Lloyds Bank PlC V Waterhouse (1990)

D. MISREPRESENTATION

Introduction

  • Operative misrepresentation
  • Who can one claim remedy for misrepresentation?
  • Misrepresentation can be innocent, fraudulent and negligent
  • Remedies are found in common law, equity and statute law (Trade Description Act CAP)
  • No general duty to disclose relevant facts in pre-contract negotiations
  • Misrepresentation must be false statement of fact not opinion or intention.
  • Edginton v. Fitzmaurice (1885) 29 ch. D 459 statement of opinion Bisset v. Wilkinson (1927) AC 177
  • Statement of person in better position to know the truth Smith v. Land and House Property Corporation (1884) 28 ch. D 7
  • Brown V. Raphael (1958)
  • Statement of expert Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd. Marden (1976)
  • No general duty to disclose Turner v. Green (1895)
  • Partial non-disclosure Motts Patent Brick and Tile Co. (1886)
  • Change of circumstances withV O’Flanagan (1936) ch. 575
  • Change of intention Traill V Baring (1864)
  • Fiduciary or confidential relationships (covered under undue influence) – duty to disclose material facts
  • Misrepresentation by conduct Ray v. Sampers (1974) R V Charles (1977)
  • When is misrepresentation operative?
  • Parties to the contract
  • Reliance Smith v Chadwick (1884)
  • Where reasonable person would have relied upon misrepresentation County Natwest v. Barton (2002)
  • Where misrepresentation is not known about Horsfall v. Thomas (1862)
  • Where representee relies upon his own investigations Attwood v. small (1838)
  • Where opportunity to discover truth not taken. Redgrave v. Hurd (1881)
  • Degree of reliance Edginton v. Fitzmaurice (1885)
  • Atlantic lines and Navigation Co. Inc. v. Hallam Ltd “The Way” (1983)
  • Materiality

Types of misrepresentation

  • Fraudulent misrepresentation Derry v. Deek (1889) 14 App Case 337

Arkerhielm v. De Mark (1959) Ac 789

  • Jewson & Sons Ltd. v. Arcos Ltd (1933)
  • Damages for fraudulent misrepresentation
  • Negligent misstatements Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd. v. Heller & Partners Ltd (1964)
  • Innocent misrepresentation
  • Rescission Car and Finance Ltd v. Caldwell (1965)
  • Indemnity Whittington v. Seale –Hayne (1990)
  • Trade Descriptions Act CAP 505 Laws of Kenya

E. ILLEGALITY

  • Introduction
  • Illegal contracts divided on the basis on the legal consequences of those contracts (e.g. void or illegal)

A. VOID CONTRACTS

  • Gaming or wagering contracts Gaming laws Ellesmere (Ear of v. Wallace (1929) 2 ch. I

1. Contracts in Restraint of Trade

  • Prima facie void unless justified as being reasonable between the parties and not inimical to the public interest
  • Examples of ‘goodwill’ and employment agreements Schroeder Music Publishing Co. Macaulay (1974) 3 All ER 616
  • Restraint may be reasonable and commercially necessary for protection of legitimate interest Nordenfelt v. Maxin Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunitions Co. Ltd.(1894) Ac 535
  • Sale of business Nordenfelt Vancouver Malt and Sake Brewing Co. Ltd v. Vancouver Breweries Co. Ltd. (1934) Ac 181
  • Court willing to sever parts which might be too wide in area or period Goldsoll v. Goldman (1915) 1 Ch 292

Restraints in a contract of employment

  • Protection of trade secrets and confidential information
  • Distinction between trade secret and confidential information Fss Travel & Leisure Systems Ltd v. Johnson (1998) I RLR 382 Herbert Morris Ltd v. Saxelby (1916) AC 688
  • What constitutes a trade secrets? Forsters & Sons Ltd v. Suggett (1918) 35 TLR 87
  • Faccanda Chicken Ltd v. Fowler (1987) Ch. 177 Peter Brooks v. Olyslager Oms(UK) Ltd (1998) 1 PLR 590
  • Commercial Plastics Ltd v. Vincent (1965) 1 QB 623
  • Littlewoods organization Ltd v. Harris (1978) 1 ALL ER 1026 Kores Manufacturing Co. Ltd v. Kolok Manufacturing (Ltd) (1958) Ch. 108
  • Clauses restraining soliciting of customers
  • Distinction between different categories of employees Fitch v. Dewes (1921) 2AC 158
  • Marion White Ltd v. Francis (1972) 3 ALL ER 857
  • The scope of restraint clause and severance Fitch v. Suggett Mason v. Provident Clothing & Supply Co. Ltd. (1913) Ac. 724
  • Attwood v Lament (1920) 3 KB 571
  • What are the requirements for severance? Goldsoll v. Goldman Littlewoods Organisation v. Harris 1 ALL ER 1026
  • Restraints protecting other interests Eastham v. Newcastle United Football Club Ltd. (1964) Ch 413
  • Schroeder Music Publishing co.Ltd v. Macaulay (1974) 13 ALL ER 616
  • Silverstone Records v.Mountfield (1993) EMLR 152
  • Are the categories of restraint closed? Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd v. Harpers Garage (Stouport) Ltd
  • Further regulation of Restraint of trade
  • A third party might be seriously affected by a restraint of trade but, has, until recently, been entirely without remedy. Mogul Steamship Co. Ltd v. McGreger, Gow & Co. Ltd. (1892)
  • In this case an association of shipowners took collective action to keep the plaintiff out of the shipping trade. At that time, the House of Lords was not even certain that the contract was in restraint of trade. However they were clear that even if it was, the plaintiff had no remedy
  • Restrictive Trade Practices, Monopolies and Price control Act CAP 504 Laws of Kenya

2.OTHER CONTRACTS VOID AT COMMON LAW ON GROUNDS OF

PUBLIC POLICY

  • Contracts to oust the jurisdiction of the courts Jones v. Vernons Pools Ltd (1938( 2 ALL ER 626
  • Scott v. Avery (1855) 5 HL Cas 81
  • Baker v. Jones (1954) 1 WLR 1005
  • Hyman v. Hyman (1929) P1, 26 LGR 471
  • Contracts undermining the status of marriage Love v. Peers (1768) 4 Burr 2225
  • Marriage brokerage Hermann v. Charles worth (1905) 2 KB 123

BILLEGAL CONTRACTS

  • Distinction between void and illegal contracts
  • Contracts to commit an unlawful Act
  • Where purpose to commit, a crime, or a tort or a fraud it is illegal and unforceable. Brown Jenkinson & Co. Ltd. v. Percy Dalfen ltd (1957) 2 QB 621
  • A guilty person may be able to enforce the contract Shaw v. Groom (1970)
  • Re Mohmound and Isphani(1921)
  • Contracts promoting sexual immorality Pearce v. Brooks (1866) v. LR 1 Ex 213 Upfill v. Wright [1911] 1 KB 506
  • Tanner v. Tanner (1975) 3 ALL ER 776
  • Contracts prejudicial to the interests of the state
  • Trading contracts at war time
  • Contracts prejudicial to the administration of justice R v. Andrews (1973) QB 422
  • Contracts promoting corruption in Public life Parkison v. College of Ambulance Ltd and Harrison (1925) 2 KB 1

EFFECTS OF IMPROPRIETY AND ILLEGALITY

  • Void Contracts
  • Doctrine of severance
  • Hermann v. Charles Worth (1905) 2 KB 123
  • Illegal Contracts

Re Mohmound and Ispahani Archbold’s (Freightage) Ltd v. Spangett Ltd (1961) 1 Q3 374

Ashmore, Benson, Pease & Co. Ltd v. AV Dawson Ltd (1973) 2 ALL ER 856

  • Some general principles
  • An illegal contract is unforceable by either party Pearce v. Brooks
  • Mohammed v. Alaga & Co. (1999) 3 ALL ER 699
  • Money or property transferred is not recoverable Parkinson v. College of Ambulance Ltd & Harrison
  • Belvoir Finance Co. Ltd. v. Stapleton (1971) 1 QB 210
  • Exceptions

Tinsley v. Milligan (1993) 3 ALL ER 65

Whenever parties are not equally guilty Kiriri Cotton Ltd v. Dewani (1960) AC 192

Green v. Portsmouth Stadium Ltd (1953) 2QB 190

Bigos v. Bousted (1951) 1 All ER 92

Kearly v. Thomson (1890) 24 QBD 742

  • Related transactions between the parties

Fisher v. Bridges (1854) 18 JP 599 Strongman (1945) Ltd v. Sincock (1955) 2 QB 525

  • Illegal performance of lawful contracts

Archbold’s (Freightage) Ltd v. Spanglett Ltd

Marle v. Philip Trant & Sons Ltd (1954)1 QB 29

Proposals for reform

TOPIC TWO: DISCHARGE OF CONTRACT

1. PERFORMANCE

  • Performance depends on the express ad implied terms of the contract
  • Sale of Goods Act CAP 31 implied Terms – Sec 14-17 to title description, merchantability
  • Parties may agree to end upon the occurrence of certain circumstances. Financings Ltd. v. Baldock (1963) 2 QB 104 “Where hirer fails to pay the initial or any subsequent installments within 10 days…”
  • By new Agreements

Order of performance and independent obligation

Taylor v. Webb (1937) 2KB 283

Entire contracts Cutter v. Powell (1795) 6 Term Rep. 320

  • Quantum Meruit Sumpter v. Hedges (1898) 1 QB 673
  • Substantial performance Hoening v. Isaacs (1952) 2 ALL ER 176

2.BREACH

TERMINATION FOR BREACH

  • Hong Kong for Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd (1962) 2 QB 26
  • Freeth v. Burr (1874) LR 9 CP 208
  • Alfred C Toepfer International Gmbtt v. Itex Itagrani Export SA (1993) 1 Lloyd Rep. 360 Decro-wall International SA V Practitioner Marketing Ltd (1971) 2 ALL ER 216
  • Photo production Ltd. v. Securior Transport Ltd ( 1980) 1 Ailer 556
  • The Mihalis Angelos (1971) 1 QB 164
  • Anticipatory breach Freeth v. Burr (1874) LR 94208
  • Hashamu v. Zenab (1960) AC 316
  • Communication of repudiation Vitol SA v. Norelf Ltd (1996) 3 ALL ER 193
  • Affirmation or termination Stocznia Gdanska SA V Latuian Shipping (No.3) (2002) 2 ALL ER 768 Hochster v. De La Tour (1853) 2 E & B 678
  • Frost v. Knight (1872) 7 Exch. 111
  • Intention not to perform Federal Commerce and Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Molena Alpha Inc (1979) 1 ALL ER 307 Woodwar Investment Development Ltd. v. Wimpey Construction UK Ltd. (1980) 1 ALL ER 571
  • Vaswani v. Italian motors (sales and services) ltd (1996_ 1 WLR 270
  • Keeping the contract alive Avery v. Bowden (1856) 6 E & B 953 Fercometal SARL v. MSC Meditterranean Shipping Cp. SA (1988) The Simona (1989) AC 788 The Mihalis Angelos
  • Anticipayory breach and duty to mitigate White and Carter (Councils ) Ltd v. McGregor (19662) AC 413
  • The Alaskan Trader (Clea shipping corpn v. Bulk oil International Ltd) (1984)

3. DISCHARGE BY IMMPOSSIBILITY: THE DOCTRINE OF FRUSTRATION

  • Introduction: Initial & subsequent impossibility
  • Amalgamated Investment & Property Co. Ltd. v. John Walker & Sons Ltd (1976) 3 ALL ER 509
  • Development of the doctrine of frustration Paradine v. Jane (1647) 26 Sty 47
  • Taylor v. Caldwell (1863) 3 B & S 826
  • Scope of doctrine Krell v. Henry (1903) 2 KB 70
  • A narrow interpretation of frustration Herne Bay Steamboat Co. v. Hutton (1903) 2 KB 683
  • Tsakiroglou & Co. Ltd v. Noblee Thorl GmbH 1 (1962)
  • Financial hardship no reason to allow reliance on frustration Davis contractors Ltd v. Fareham UDC (1956) AC 696

Scope of the doctrine

  • Leases

National carriers Ltd. v. Panalpina (Northern) Ltd [1981] 1 ALL ER 161

  • Illegality
  • Impossibility: destruction of subject matter Appleby v. Myers (1867) LR 2 CP 651
  • Asfar v. Blundell (1896) 1 QB 123
  • Impossibility: Sale of Goods Act
  • Impossibility: death or illness whincup v. Hughes (1871) LR 6 CP 78
  • Robinson v. Davison (1871) LR 6 Exch 269
  • Notcutt v. Universal Equipment Co. (London) Ltd (1986) 3 ALL ER 582
  • Impossibility: due to unavailability Jackson v. Union Marine Insurance Co. Ltd. (1874) LR 10 CP 125
  • Tamplin steamship co. Ltd Anglo-Mexican Petroleum Products co. (1916) 1 KB 485
  • Impossibility: Not just financial hardship Davis contractors Ltd v. Fareham UDC (1956) AC 696
  • Tsakiroglou & Co. Ltd v. Noble Thorl GmbH(1962)
  • Staffordshire Area Health Authority v. South Staffordshire Water Works Co. (1978 (3 ALL ER 769
  • Effects of express provisions for frustrating event Taylor v. Caldwell Jackson v. Union Marine Insurance Co. Ltd (1874) LR 10 CP 125
  • Frustration does not apply to forseeable events. Davis Contractors Ltd. v. Fareham UDC (1956) AC 696
  • Frustration cannot be self induced Ocean Tramp Tankers Corp v. V/O Sofracht, The Eugenia (1964) 2 QB 226
  • Paal Wilson Co. A/S v. Partenreederei Hannah Blumenthal, The Hannah Blumenthal (1983) 1 ALL ER 34
  • Joseph Constantine Steamship line Ltd. v. Imperial Smelting Corp Ltd. (1941) 2 ALL ER 165
  • Effects of the doctrine Hirji Mulji V Cheong Yue Steamship Co. Ltd. (1926) AC 497 Chandler v. Webster (1904) 1 KB 493 Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbou
  • r Ltd, The Fibrosa case (1943) AC 32
  • The Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943
  • Main changes introduced by the Act.
  • Gamerco SA V. ICM/ Fair Warning (Agency) Ltd (1995) 1 WLR 1226 Cutter v. Powell (1795) 6 Term rep 320
  • BP Exploration co (Libya) Ltd v. Hunt (no.2) (1982) 1 ALL ER 925

TOPIC 3 REMEDIES