Case summary & court held

1. Cutter v Powell<br />Facts:<br />The defendant agreed to pay Cutter 30 Guineas that he served as second mate on a voyage from Jamaica to Liverpool. The voyage began on 2 August. Cutter died on 20 September, when the ship was 19 days short of Liverpool. Cutter’s widow brought an action to recover a proportion of the 30 guineas.<br />TCH:<br />The widow’s action failed. The contract was interpreted as being an ‘entire’ contract for a lump sum, and nothing was payable until it was completed. Thus, even though the defendant had had the benefit of Cutter’s labour for a substantial part of the voyage, on compensation for this was recoverable.<br />Dakin v Lee<br />Facts:<br />The contract was for the repair of a house. The work was not done in accordance with the contract. In particular, the concrete underpinning was only half the contract depth; the columns to support a bay window were of 4 inch diameter solid iron, instead of 5 inch diameter hollow; and the joists over the bay window were not cleaved at the angles or bolted to caps and to each other. The officer referee found that the plaintiffs had not performed the contract, and therefore could not claim for any payment in respect of it. The plaintiff appealed.<br />TCH:<br />There was a distinction between “failing to complete” and “completing badly”. Here, the contract had been performed, though badly performed, and the plaintiff could recover for the work done, less deductions for the fact that it did not conform to the contract requirements.<br />Hoeing v Isaacs<br />Facts:<br />Mr. Isaacs was meant to decorate and furnish Mr. Hoeing’s flat for £750. When the work was done, there were problems with a bookcase and wardrobe, which would cost £55 to fix. Mr. Hoeing refused to pay the £350 outstanding.<br />TCH:<br />In a lump sum contract for work in which the sum is payable on completion, the defendant cannot refuse to pay because, even though the work is substantially complete, there are small items which are not in compliance with the exact specifications of the contract.<br />Bolton v Mahadeva<br />Facts:<br />Mr. Walter Charles Bolton installed central heating for £560 in Mr. T Mahadeva’s house. It was too cold, the heat came unevenly and it all gave off fumes. Bolton refused to correct it, which would cost £174. Mahadeva refused to pay any money at all. Bolton sued.<br />TCH:<br />Bolton was entitled to nothing because there had been no substantial performance at all. At 1015 he said, ‘it is not merely that so very much of the work was shoddy, but it is the general ineffectiveness of it for its primary purpose that leads me to that conclusion.<br />Paradine v Jane<br />Facts:<br />Paradine (Plaintiff) sued Jane (Defendant) for a failure to pay rent for three years on leased lands. Jane asserted as a defense that the lands had been seized and occupied by Prince Rupert of Germany, and that Jane had been put out of possession and frustrated in the performance of his duties under the ease and was not bound to perform under the contract.<br />TCH:<br />Jane was still liable for the rent. The lessee would have gained the advantage of the profits and therefore he must bear the risk of the losses.<br />Poussard v Spiers<br />Facts:<br />Poussard was engaged to appear in an operetta from the start of its London run for three months. The plaintiffs fell ill and the producers were forced to engage a substitute. A week later Poussard recovered and offered to take her place, but the defendants refused to take her back.<br />TCH:<br />The defendant’s refusal was justified and that they were not liable in damages. What chiefly influenced the court was that Poussard’s illness was a serious one of uncertain duration and the defendants could not put off the opening night until she recovered. The obligation to perform from the first night was a condition of the contract. Failure to carry out this term entitled the producers to repudiate Poussard’s contract.<br />Bettini v Gye<br />Facts:<br />Bettini, an opera singer, was engaged by Gye to appear in season of concerts. He undertook to be in London at least six days before the first concert for the purpose of rehearsals. He arrived three days late because of a temporary illness. He gave no advance notice and Gye refused to accept his services.<br />TCH:<br />The plaintiff had been engaged to perform for a 15-week season and the failure to attend rehearsals could only affect a small part of this period. The promise to appear for rehearsals was a less important term of the contract. The defendant could claim compensation for a breach of warranty but he could not repudiate Bettini’s contract.<br />Hadley v Baxendale<br />Facts:<br />The plaintiff’s crank shaft broke. It was the only one they had, and without it they could not run their mill. They contracted with the defendant to send it to engineers. The delivery was delayed, and the plaintiff sued for lost profits. The jury awarded damage of £25. The defendant appealed.<br />TCH:<br />Baxendale could only be held liable for losses that were generally foreseeable, or if Hadley had mentioned his special circumstances in advance. <br />Addis v Gramophone<br />Facts:<br />Mr. Addis was Granmophone’s manager in Calcutta. He was given six months notice as required and appointed a successor. They took steps to prevent Addis acting as manager. This was humiliating. The jury awarded Addis £340 for loss of commissions and £600 for wrongful dismissal. <br />TCH: £600 was not allowed, that he could only recover his six months’ salary and no more. <br />Lumley v Wagner<br />Facts:<br />A singer Johanna Wagner, defendant, entered into a simple contract to perform at Her Majesty’s Theatre, for a period of three months, covering a certain number of nights and nowhere else during that period. The defendant subsequently arranged to sing at Gye’s theater for more money. Lumley sued and sought an injunction preventing Wagner from performing at other theaters. <br />TCH:<br />Injunctive relief can be used to enforce a promise not to render personal services. As a matter of morals, contractors for personal services should be bound to a true and literal performance of their contract, and not be permitted to breach at their leisure, leaving the other party to the mere chance of damages that a jury may award.<br />