Related topics

Law and Sea.
Effect of Breach

It is true that the defendant has, by his own breach of contract, put himself in such an unfortunate position. But the purpose of the law of contract is not to punish wrongdoing but to satisfy the expectations of the party entitled to performance. A remedy which enables him to secure, in money terms, more than the performance due to him is unjust.

Performance of Contract, Prevention of
Last updated: 06-Oct-2014

Luxor (Eastbourne) Ltd v Cooper [1941] 1 All ER 33, per Viscount Simon LC at p.39:

If A employs B for reward to do a piece of work for him which requires outlay and effort on B’s part, and which depends on the continued existence of a given subject-matter which is under A’s control (as in Inchbald v Western Neilgherry Coffee, Tea, & Cinchona Plantation Co Ltd (1864) 17 CBNS 733), there may be an implied term that A will not prevent B from doing the work by destroying the subject-matter, and, generally speaking, where B is employed by A to do a piece of work which requires A’s co-operation - e.g., to paint A’s portrait - it is implied that the necessary co-operation will be forthcoming - e.g., A will give sittings to the artist.

William Cory & Son Ltd v London Corpn [1951] 2 All ER 85, obiter per Lord Asquith at p.88:

In general, no doubt, it is true that a term is necessarily implied in any contract, the other terms of which do not repel the implication, that neither party shall prevent the other from performing it, and that a party so preventing the other is guilty of a breach, but an act cannot be a breach of a term of the contract, express or implied, (let alone a repudiation) unless the term in question is valid. There can be no breach if the term in question is illegal, contrary to public policy, or (in the case of a corporation) ultra vires the contracting party…

Leave your comments

Form by