law 220-contract law-saad rasool.pdf

Lahore University of Management Sciences

Law 220 – Contract Law Fall & 2012

Instructor Saad Rasool

Room No.

Office Hours

Email

Telephone

Secretary/TA

TA Office Hours

Course URL (if any)

Course Basics

Credit Hours

Lecture(s) Nbr of Lec(s) Per Week 2 Duration 100 minutes

Recitation/Lab (per week)

Nbr of Lec(s) Per Week Duration

Tutorial (per week)

Nbr of Lec(s) Per Week Duration

Course Distribution

Core Contracts

Elective

Open for Student Category

Close for Student Category


COURSE DESCRIPTION

This course pack is designed to give students a theoretical and practical understanding of the Law of contract. The course focuses on solving problem questions on contract law and examines fundamental concepts of contracting theory, including offer and acceptance, consideration, misrepresentation, and the breach of contract, as well as the remedies arising from breach of contract.

COURSE PREREQUISITE(S)

NONE

COURSE OBJECTIVES

On completion of the course students will be able to:

Analyze sets of facts presented in the form of problem questions, identify and examine the relevant law and provide answers on the application of the law to the facts.

Present and critically discuss the content of legal rules, answer essay questions on the evolution of the law of contract, and assess the current state of the law.

In order to successfully complete the course, the students need to demonstrate knowledge of the main areas of the course through the presentation of case law and statute, and show skills in answering problem questions in identifying the relevant law and applying it to the facts in reaching a sensible conclusion.


Learning Outcomes

As a result of attending this course, the Students will learn how to:

Understand the origin and legal reasoning behind the contracting theory.

Understand some of the core doctrines within the common law development of contract law.

Identify the critical elements required to create a legally binding contract enforceable under law.

Understand contract performance, discharge and breach.

Recognize the different situations which may lead to early contract termination, such as frustration, repudiation and rescission.

Recognize the differing remedies that may apply in the event of a breach of contract. Grading Breakup and Policy

Assignment(s): NA Home Work: NA Quiz(s): 10 Class Participation: 15 Attendance: 10 Midterm Examination: 25 Project: NA Final Examination: 40

Examination Detail

Midterm Exam

Yes/No: Yes Combine Separate: Separate Duration: Preferred Date: Exam Specifications: Factual problem solving and legal reasoning


Final Exam

Yes/No: Yes Combine Separate: Combine Duration: Exam Specifications:

Textbook(s)/Supplementary Readings

Compulsory readings: Ewan McKendrick, Contract Law 9th Edition (Palgrave Macmillan, 2011)

The Contract Act, 1872 (Bare Act)

Supplementary Readings: Buttler

M. Mahmood, The Contract Act, 1972 Second Edition (Pakistan Law Times Publications 2011)

COURSE OVERVIEW

Week/ Lecture/ Module

Topics Recommended

Readings Case Law (Conceptual) Case Law (Pakistani/Indian)

Module 1 CONTRACT THEORY

Brian H. Bix, Theories of Contract Law and Enforcing Promissory

Morality: Comments on Charles Fried, Contract Law (Cambridge,

2012)

Liam Murphy, Contract and Promise

Brian H. Bix, Some Reflections on Contract Law Theory, Contract

Law (Cambridge, 2012)

Module 1

Introduction

i. Offer/Proposal

ii. Bilateral Contracts

iii. Unilateral Contracts

iv. Public at Large

McKendrick, Chapter 3: ‘Offer and acceptance’ – up to 3.4 pp. 27–35

Butler, Chapter 3: ‘Agreement’ – 3.1 ‘Introduction’, 3.2 “Understanding the concept of offer’, pp. 31-35.

Contract Act 1872, section(s) 2(a), 2(c), 2(e) and 9.

United Dominions Trust (Commercial) Ltd v Eagle

Aircraft Service Ltd (1968)

Gibson v. Manchester City Council (1979)

Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1893)

AIR 1957 S.C. 95

LR 38 IA 80

AIR 1949 Nag. 286

ILR 28 Bom. 66

Module 1

Offer/Proposal

i. What is not an Offer/Proposal?

ii. Intention is Important

iii. Conditional Proposal

McKendrick, Chapter 3: ‘Offer and acceptance’ – up to 3.7

‘Acceptance’ and 3.9 ‘Acceptance in ignorance of the offer’, pp.

27–35 and 36-37.

Butler, Chapter 3: ‘Agreement’ – 3.1 ‘Introduction’, 3.3 ‘What is

Gibson v. Manchester City Council (1979)

Pharmaceutical Society v. Boots (1953)

Fisher v. Bell (1961)

Partridge v. Crittenden (1968)


iv. Invitation to Treat

1. Advertisements

2. Newspaper Ads

3. Display of Goods

4. Auctions/Tenders

v. Communication of Offer

not an offer’ to 3.4.3 ‘Tendering’ and 3.5 ‘Communication of an

offer’, pp. 31-32, 35-44 and 49-50.

Contract Act 1872, section(s) 2(a), 2(c), 2(f), 3, 4, 8 and 9.


Harvela Investments Ltd v. Royal Trust Co of

Canada Ltd (1985)

Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club Ltd v. Blackpool

Borough Council (1990)

Gibbons v. Proctor (1891)

R v. Clark (1927)

Module 1

Acceptance

i. Acceptance

1. By Word or by Conduct

2. Counter Offer

3. Request for more Information

4. Battle of Forms

ii. Communication of Acceptance

1. In Bilateral contracts

2. In Unilateral contracts

iii. Exceptions to need of communication

1. Where requirement of

communication is waived by the

offeror

2. Postal Acceptance

3. Modern Technology

iv. Method of Acceptance

1. Specific method

2. Inferred from the Offer

v. End of an unaccepted offer

1. Change of mind

2. If conditions in the offer is not

fulfilled

3. Death of the offeror or offeree

4. Lapse of Offer

McKendrick, Chapter 3: ‘Offer and acceptance’ – 3.7

‘Acceptance’, 3.8 ‘Communication of the acceptance’ and 3.10

‘Prescribed method of acceptance’ to 3.14 ‘Termination of the

offer’, pp: 35, 35-36 and 37-44.

Butler, Chapter 3: ‘Agreement’ – 3.6 Termination of an offer’ to

3.12 ‘Contract formation: Time and Place’, pp. 50-76.

Contract Act 1872, section(s) 2(b), 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35

and 36.

Brogden v. Metropolitan Railway Company

(1871)

Day Morris Associates v. Voyce (2003)

Hyde v. Wrench (1840)

Butler Machine Tool v. Ex-Cell-o (1979)

Felthouse v. Bindley (1862)


Adams v. Lindsell (1818)

Entores v. Miles Far East Corp (1955)

Manchester Diocesan Council for Education v.

Commercial and General Investments (1970)

Quenerduaine v. Cole (1883)

Routledge v. Grant (1828)

Dickinson v. Dodds (1876)

Financings Ltd v. Stimson (1962)

Bradbury v. Morgan (1862)

Offord v. Davies (1862)

2007 CLC 462

1995 MLD 123

AIR 1938 Lah. 341

AIR 1970 S.C 706

AIR 1957 SC 95

2005 YLR 301

2002 YLR 1061

AIR 1955 S.C 468

1996 CLC 698

PLD 1999 Kar. 181

2003 MLD 131

AIR 1960 Pat 139

AIR 1962 SC 378

AIR 1947 Mad. 366

PLD 1965 Kar. 202

2004 YLR 1612

2008 CLD 356

2008 MLD 577

1988 CLC 448

PLD 1972 Lah. 847

1972 Cur LJ 408 (Punj)

AIR 1949 Pat 270

1972 Madh Pra 131


AIR 1991 Pat. 14

Module 1

Consideration

i. Definition

ii. Consideration must be ‘sufficient’ but

need not to be ‘adequate’

1. Economic Value

iii. Existing obligations as good

consideration

1. Obligations which arise under the

Law, independently of any contract

2. Obligations which are owed under a

contract with a third party

3. Obligations which exist under a

contract with a person who has

made a new promise, for which the

existing obligation is alleged to

provide good consideration

iv. Past Consideration

McKendrick, Chapter 5: ‘Consideration and form’ – 5.2

‘Consideration defined’ to 5.8 ‘Intangible returns’ and 5.10

‘Performance of duty imposed by law’ to 5.18 ‘Past

consideration’, pg. 63-75 and 75-87.

Butler, Chapter 6: ‘Consideration’ – 6.1 ‘Introduction’ to 6.5

‘Consideration: specific examples’, pp. 136-170

Contract Act 1872, section(s) 2(d), 2(f), 23 and 24.

Articles:

Mindy Chen-Wishart, ‘Consideration, practical benefit and the Emperor’s new clothes’, Beatson, J. and D. Friedmann, (eds) Good faith and fault in contract law.

Currie v. Misa (1875)

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v. Selfridge & Co

Ltd (1915)

Thomas v. Thomas (1842)

Chappell v. Nestle (1960)

White v. Bluett (1853)

Ward v. Byham (1956)

Glasbrook Bros Ltd v Glamorgan CC (1925)

Stilk v. Myrick (1809)

Williams v. Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors)

Ltd (1991)

Shadwell v. Shadwell (1860)

Pao On v Lau Yiu Long (1980)

Re McArdle (1951)

PLD 1956 Lah. 521

PLD 1998 Kar. 274

(1956) 1 MLJ 471

Module 1

Promissory Estoppel

i. Concept

ii. Limitations on promissory estoppels

McKendrick, Chapter 5: ‘Consideration and form’ – 5.22

‘Estoppel’ to 5.29 ‘Conclusion: the future of consideration’, pp.

92-104.

Butler, Chapter 7: ‘Equitable estoppel’ – 7.1 ‘Introduction’ to 7.5

‘Relevant remedy’, pp. 174-196

Contract Act 1872, section(s) 9, 25, 59, 60 and 61.

Articles:

Peter Jaffey, A new version of the reliance theory.

Central London Property Trust Ltd v. High Trees

House Ltd (1947)

Jorden v. Money (1854)

Evenden v. Guildford City FC (1975)

Combe v. Combe (1951)

D & C Builders v Rees (1966)

Tool Metal Manufacturing Co Ltd v. Tungsten

Electric Co Ltd (1955)

Evans v. Amicus Healthcare Ltd (2003)

2004 YLR 1612

PLD 1957 LAH 998

2005 CLD 255

2010 YLR 279

PLD 1995 LAH 395

Module 1

Requirements of Intention, Certainty and

Completeness

i. Intention to create Legal Relations

1. Domestic and Social agreements

McKendrick, Chapter 4: ‘Certainty and agreement mistakes’ – up

to 4.4 ‘A general rule?’, pp. 47-53.

McKendrick, Chapter 6: ‘Intention to create legal relations’, pp.

109-113.

Balfour v. Balfour (1919)

Jones v Padavatton (1969)

Soulsbury v. Soulsbury (2007)

Esso Petroleum Ltd v. Commissioners of Customs

2007 CLC 1372

PLD 1999 KAR 181

1998 MLD 1175

2001 MLD 1925


2. Commercial agreements

ii. Certainty of Terms and Vagueness

iii. A complete agreement

Butler, Chapter 4: ‘Certainty and completeness’ – 4.1

‘Introduction’ to 4.6 ‘Saving incomplete agreements’, pp. 85-105

Butler, Chapter 5: ‘Intention to create legal relations’ – 4.1

‘Introduction’ to 5.4 ‘Commercial agreement’, pp. 117-124

Contract Act 1872, section 2(e), 10, 11, 13, 14 and 29.

Articles:

Jody S. Kraus &Robert E. Scott, Contract Design And The

Structure Of Contractual Intent, 84 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1023, 2009

S. Hedley, ‘Keeping contract in its place: Balfour v Balfour and

the enforceability of informal agreements’, Oxford Journal of

Legal Studies 5 (3) pp.391–415, 1985

and Excise (1976)

Scammell v Ouston (1941)

Hillas v Arcos (1932)

Nicolene Ltd v. Simmonds (1953)

Courtney & Fairbairn Ltd v. Tolani Brothers

(Hotels) Ltd (1975)

1990 CLC 1200

PLD 1967 KAR 158

2008 SCMR 1031

AIR 1983 ALL 9

PLD 1965 LAH 729

PLD 1989 Lah. 152

AIR 1924 ALL 657

Module 2 Overview of the Contract process

Articles:

Jody S. Kraus, Philosophy of Contract Law.

Alan Schwartz and Robert E Scott, "Contract Theory and the

Limits of Contract Law", Faculty Scholarship Series.

Charles Fried, Contract as a Promise: A theory of Contractual

obligations, Harvard University press.

Alon Klement and Daphna Kapeliuk, Contractualizing Procedure,

(December 31, 2008)

Simon Johnson, John McMillan and Christopher Woodruff,

Courts and Relational Contracts, Journal of Law Economics &

Organization (Apr 01, 2002)

Karen Eggleston, Eric A. Posner and Richard Zeckhauser, ‘The

Design And Interpretation of Contracts: Why Complexity

Matters’, 95 Nw. U. L. Rev. 91 2000-2001

Module 3

Content of Contracts

Terms

i. What is a term?

ii. Terms importance

iii. Special knowledge

McKendrick, Chapter 8: ‘What is a term’ – 8.1 ‘What is a term’

and 8.3 ‘Special Knowledge’, pp. 149-150 and 150-151.

McKendrick, Chapter 9: ‘The sources of contractual terms’ – 9.1

‘Introduction’ to 9.2 ‘The parol evidence rule’, pp. 153.

Contract Act 1872, section 37.

Oscar Chess Ltd v. Williams (1957)

Jacobs v. Batavia & General Plantations Trusts

Ltd (1924)

Shogun Finance Ltd v. Hudson (2003)

2002 CLD 658

2001 YLR 2240

AIR 1946 Nag


iv. Parol evidence rule

v. Implied terms

Articles:

Roy Goode, ‘The statutory implied terms in favour of the buyer’,

Goode, R. Commercial law (3rd

edition) London: Penguin Books,

2004. pp.279–295

Module 3

Conditions

i. What is a Condition?

ii. Difference between condition and

warranty

iii. Fundamental breach

iv. Indemnity Clause

McKendrick, Chapter 10: ‘The classification of contractual terms’

– 10.2 ‘What is a condition?’ to 10.3 ‘Distinguishing between a

condition and a warranty’, pp. 177-181

McKendrick, Chapter 11: ‘Exclusion Clauses’ – 11.7 ‘Fundamental

breach’ and 11.12 ‘Indemnity Clause’, pp. 194-196 and 205.

Pym v. Campbell (1856)

Couchman v. Hill (1947)

Bunge Corp v. Tardax Export SA (1981)

The Mihalis Angelos (1971)

Lombard North Central plc v. Butterworth (1987)

Module 4

Third Party Rights

Privity of Contract

i. The Doctrine of Privity

ii. Rights conferred on Third Parties

iii. Liability imposed upon Third Parties

iv. The remedies available to the Third

Party

McKendrick, Chapter 7: ‘Third party rights’ – 7.1 ‘Introduction’ to

7.4 ‘Criticisms of the doctrine of privity’ and 7.14 ‘Rights of the

promisee’ to 7.23 ‘Interference with the contractual rights’, pp.

115-120 and 130-144.

Butler, Chapter 12: ‘Privity’ – 12.1 ‘Introduction’ to 12.2 ‘General

rule’ and 12.4 ‘So-called exceptions at common law’, pp. 389-

392 and 403-413

Contract Act 1872, section(s) 37, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187,

188, 211 and 226.

Articles:

Glenn D. West and W Benton Lewis, Jr., Contracting to Avoid Extra-

Contractual Liability – Can Your Contractual Deal Ever Really Be the

"Entire" Deal?, 64 Bus. Law. 999 2008-2009

Tweddle v. Atkinson (1961)

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre v. Selfridge & Co (1915)

Beswick v. Beswick (1968)

The Albazero (1977)

Jackson v. Horizon Holidays (1975)

Snelling v. John G Snelling (1973)

2002 CLD 658

2001 YLR 2240

PLD 1997 Kar. 267

PLD 2003 S.C. 31

PLD 1988 S.C. 39

2002 CLD 77

PLD 2004 S.C. 860

1988 MLD 440

Module 5

The Capacity to Contract

Duress and Undue influence

i. Duress: Introduction

1. Effect of duress

2. Forms of duress

McKendrick, Chapter 16: ‘Capacity’ – 16.1 ‘Introduction’ to 16.3

‘Mental incapacity and drunkenness’, pp. 289-291.

McKendrick, Chapter 17: ‘ Duress, undue influence and

inequality of bargaining power’ – 17.1 ‘Introduction’ to 17.3

‘Undue influence’, pp. 295-305

Butler, Chapter 10: ‘Capacity’ – 10.1 ‘Introduction’ to 10.2.2

Doyle v. White City Stadium (1935)

De Francesco v. Barnum (1880)

Universe Tankships of Monrovia v. International

Transport Workers Federation (The Universe

Sentinel) (1983)

Pao On v. Lau Yiu Long (1980)

1990 CLC 1200

PLD 1967 KAR 158

2008 SCMR 1031

PLD 2003 LAH 662

PLJ 2003 LAH 1610

2004 MLD 501

1992 SCMR 2184


2.1 Duress to the person

2.2 Duress of goods

2.3 Economic duress

ii. Undue influence: Introduction

1. Actual undue influence

2. Presumed undue influence

3. Undue influence and third parties

iii. Minors and Unsound mind

‘Contracts that are voidable by minor’, pp. 318-329

Butler, Chapter 15: ‘Duress’ – 15.1 ‘Introduction’ to 15.4

‘Remedies’, pp. 502-510.

Butler, Chapter 16: ‘Undue influence’ – 16.1 ‘Introduction’ to

16.5 ‘Remedy’, pp. 514-524.

Contract Act 1872, section(s) 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19, 19(a), 68 and

72.

Articles:

Andrew Phang and Hans Tjio, ‘The uncertain boundaries of undue

influence’, Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly

(2002), pp. 231–245

Royal Bank of Scotland v. Etridge (No. 2) (2001)

Barclays Bank v. O’Brien (1993)

1997 CLC 1260

PLD 1999 LAH 235

1999 CLC 1320

PLD 1999 LAH 328

Module 6

Void and Voidable Contracts

Mistake

i. Introduction

1. Mistakes at common law and in

equity

2. Mistakes at law and mistakes of fact

ii. Bilateral mistakes

1. Absence of genuine agreement

2. Common mistake

2.1 Non-existence of the subject

matter

2.2 Mistakes as to ownership

2.3 Mistake as to the possibility of

performance

2.4 Mistake as to a quality of the

subject matter

2.5 Fundamental mistake going to

the root of the contract

iii. Unilateral mistakes

1. Mistaken assumptions or promises

McKendrick, Chapter 14: ‘Common mistake and frustration’,

pp.245-255

Butler, Chapter 14: ‘Mistake’ – 14.1 ‘Introduction’ to 14.6

‘Unilateral mistake’, pp. 478-496.

Contract Act 1872, section(s) 13, 14, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28

and 30.

Articles:

David Capper, Common Mistake in Contract Law, Singapore

Journal of Legal Studies [2009] 457–473

Adrian Chandler, James Devenney and Jill Poole, ‘Common

mistake: a theoretical justification and remedial inflexibility’,

Journal of Business Law 2004. pp. 34–58

Roger Brownsword, ‘New notes on the old oats’, Solicitors’

Journal 131 [1987]

Cooper v. Phibbs (1867)

Raffles v. Wichelhaus (1864)

Scriven v. Hindley (1913)

Bell v. Lever Brothers (1931)

Couturier v. Hastie (1856)

Galloway v Galloway

Sheikh Brothers Ltd v. Ochsner (1957)

Griffith v. Brymer (1903)

Associated Japanese Bank (International) Ltd v.

Credit du Nord SA (1988)

Smith v. Hughes (1871)

Shogun Finance v. Hudson (2003)

Philips v. Brooks (1919)

Lewis v. Averay (1972)

Cundy v. Lindsay (1878)

Gallie v Lee (1971)

AIR 1983 ALL 9

PLD 1965 LAH 729

PLD 1999 LAH 235

1999 CLC 1320

2001 YLR 1193

2001 CLC 1323

2005 CLD 255

2010 YLR 279

PLD 1995 LAH 395


2. Mistakes as to identity

3. Documents signed under a

misapprehension as to their

contents

iv. Mistake in equity

1. Forms of equitable relief

1.1 Rectification

1.2 Specific performance

1.3 Rescission

Module 6

Fraud and Misrepresentation

i. Misrepresentation and contractual

terms

ii. Statement of existing fact, inducing a

contract

iii. Misrepresentation by silence

iv. Other categories of misrepresentation

1. Fraudulent

2. Negligent at common law

3. Negligent under statute

4. Innocent

v. Remedies for misrepresentation

1. Rescission

2. Damages

McKendrick, Chapter 12: ‘A duty to disclose material facts?’, pp.

215-224.

McKendrick, Chapter 13: ‘Misrepresentation’, pp. 225-241.

Butler, Chapter 13: ‘Misrepresentation and misleading or

deceptive conduct’ – 13.1 ‘Introduction’ to 13.13 ‘Damages’, pp.

423-446.

Contract Act 1872, section(s) 17, 18 and 19.

Bisset v. Wilkinson (1927)

Smith v. Land House Corporation (1884)

Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v. Mardon (1976)

Edgington v. Fitzmaurice (1885)

Museprime Properties Ltd v. Adhill Properties Ltd

(1990)

Spice Girls Ltd v. Aprillia World Service BV (2000)

Hedley Byrne v. Heller (1964)

Car & Universal Finance Co v. Caldwell (1956)

Leaf v. International Galleries (1950)

Derry v. Peek (1889)

2004 MLD 501

1992 SCMR 2184

1997 CLC 1260

2003 YLR 1523

PLD 1999 LAH 235

1999 CLC 1320

Module 6

Illegality

i. Introduction

ii. Types of Illegality

1. Common law illegality

2. Statutory illegality

3. Contracts illegal as formed

4. Contracts illegal as performed

iii. The effects of illegality

McKendrick, Chapter 15: ‘Illegality’ – 15.1 ‘Introduction’ to 15.11

‘Contracts prejudicial to public relations’ and 15.16 ‘The scope of

public policy’ to 15.19 ‘Severance’, pp. 271-278 and 281-287.

Butler, Chapter 18: ‘Void and illegal contracts’ – 18.1

‘Introduction’ to 18.4 ‘Effects of illegality’, pp. 544-574.

Contract Act 1872, section 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 56, 57 and 58.

Articles:

Beatson, J. Anson, ‘Illegality’, Law of contract (28th

Edition, Oxford

Re Mahmoud & Ispahani (1921)

Mohamed v. Alaga & Co (A Firm) (2000)

St John Shipping Corporation v. Joseph Rank Ltd

(1957)

Alexander v. Rayson (1936)

Beresford v. Royal Exchange Assurance (1938)

Pearce v. Brooks (1866)

Franco v. Bolton (1797)

2006 CLC 855

2005 CLD 234

2010 YLR 279

PLD 1995 LAH 395


University Press)

Tinsley v. Milligan (1994)

Strongman (1945) Ltd v. Sincock (1955)

Holman v. Johnson (1775)

Taylor v. Bowers (1876)

Module 7

Discharge and Breach of Contracts

Discharge by Frustration or Operation of

Law

i. Doctrine of Frustration

ii. Limitation on the Doctrine

1. Express Provision

2. Foreseen and Foreseeable events

3. Self-induced Frustration

iii. The Effects of Frustration

McKendrick, Chapter 14: ‘Common mistake and frustration’ –

14.8 ‘Frustration’ to 14.9 ‘Frustration, force majeure and

hardship’ and 14.11 ‘Impossibility’ to 14. 17 ‘the effects of

frustration’, pp. 255-258 and 258-267.

Butler, Chapter 22: ‘Frustration’ – 22.1 ‘Introduction’ to 22.4.1

‘Common law’, pp. 668-684.


Articles:

E. McKendrick, ‘Force majeure and frustration – their relationship

and a comparative assessment’, McKendrick, E., Force majeure and

frustration of contract (2nd

Edition, London: LLP Professional

Publishing, 1995)

Paradine v. Jane (1647)

Taylor v Caldwell (1863)

Davis Contractors Ltd v. Fareham Urban District

Council (1956)

Edwinton v. Tsavliris (The Sea Angel) (2007)

Tsakiroglou & Co v. Noblee and Thorl (1962)

CTI Group Inc v. Transclear SA (2008)

Condor v. Barron Knights (1966)

Krell v Henry (1903)

Herne Bay Steam Boat Co v. Hutton (1904)

FA Tamplin v. Anglo-American Petroleum (1916)

Gamerco SA v. ICM/Fair Warning Agency (1995)

Jackson v. Union marine Insurance Co Ltd (1874)

Hirji Mulji v. Cheong Yeong Steamships Co Ltd

(1926)

Chandler v. Webster (1904)

Module 7

Breach of Contracts

i. When does the Breach occur?

ii. Consequences of Breach

iii. Anticipatory Breach

McKendrick, Chapter 19: ‘Breach of contract’, pp. 325-334.

McKendrick, Chapter 21: ‘Obtaining an adequate remedy’ – 21.2

‘The entire obligations (or ‘entire contracts’) rule’ pp. 365-367.


Articles:

Roger Brownsword, ‘Retrieving reasons, retrieving rationality? A

new look at the right to withdraw for breach of contract’, Journal of

Contract Law 83 (1992)

Cutter v. Powell (1795)

Hoenig v. Isaacs (1952)

Sumpter v. Hedges (1898)

Arcos v. Ronaasen (1933)

Decro-Wall SA v. International Practitioners in

Marketing (1971)

Vitol SA v. Norelf Ltd (1996)

Heyman v. Darwins (1942)

Photo Production Ltd v. Securicor Transport Ltd

2002 SCMR 1061

PLD 1965 KAR 364

PLD 1964 KAR 18


(1980)

Johnson v. Agnew (1980)

Stocznia Gdanska SA v. Latvian Shipping Co

(1997)

Universal Cargo Carriers Corp v. Citati (1957)

Hochster v. De la Tour (1853)

White and Carter (Councils) Ltd v. McGregor

(1962)

Module 7

Performance and Discharge of contract by

Performance or Agreement

i. Contracts which must be Performed

ii. Contracts which need not be

Performed

iii. Discharge of Contracts

McKendrick, Chapter 18: ‘Performance and discharge of the

contract’, pp. 321-322

Contract Act 1872, section(s) 37, 38, 40, 46, 52, 53, 54, 55, 62,

63, 64, 65, 66 and 67.

2002 CLD 658

2001 YLR 2240

2005 CLD 193

PLD 2002 KAR 141

PLD 1981 KAR 143

Module 8

Remedies

Damages

i. The purpose of an award of damages

ii. Measures of damages

1. Expectation interest

2. Reliance interest

3. Restitution interest

iii. Remoteness, Causation and

Mitigation

iv. Calculation of Damages

McKendrick, Chapter 20: ‘Damages for breach of contract’ – 20.1

‘Introduction’ to 20.5 ‘Failure of consideration and enrichment

by subtraction’, 20.7 ‘Reliance interest’, 20.11 ‘Remoteness’ and

20.12 ‘Causation’, pp. 337-345, 250-252, 254-259, 259-260.

Butler, Chapter 23: ‘Damages’ – 23.1 ‘Damages: compensation

for loss suffered’ to 23.11 ‘Heads of damages’, pp. 694-720.

Contract Act 1872, section(s) 39, 73 and 74.

Articles:

E. McKendrick, ‘The common law at work: The Saga of Alfred

McAlpine Construction Ltd v Panatown Ltd’, Oxford University

Commonwealth Law Journal Winter (2003) pp. 145-166

E. McKendrick, ‘Breach of Contract and The Meaning of Loss’,

Freeman, M., Current Legal Problems Vol. 52 (Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 1999)

Brain Coote, ‘Contract Damages, Ruxley and the Performance

Interest’, Cambridge Law Journal 56(3) November 1997, pp. 537-

570

Ruxley Electronics and Construction v. Forsyth

(1995)

Chaplin v. Hicks (1911)

Johnson v. Agnew (1980)

Robinson v. Harman (1848)

CCC Films v. Impact Films (1984)

Planche v Coburn (1831)

Whincup v. Hughes (1871)

Lipkin Gorman v. Karpnale (1992)

Tinsley v. Milligan (1993)

Surrey County Council v. Bredero Homes Ltd

(1993)

Attorney-General v. Blake (2000)

Wrotham Park Estate Co Ltd v. Parkside Homes

Ltd (1974)

Hadley v. Baxendale (1854)

South Australia Asset Management Co v. York

2008 CLC 228

PLD 1960 SC 166

1999 YLR 500

PLD 1953 LAH 400

PLD 1969 SC 80

1989 CLC 636

PLD 1973 SC 311

PLD 1964 SC 652


Montague Ltd (1997)

H Parsons (Livestock) v. Uttley Ingham (1978)

Module 8 Non-financial loss and Liquidated Damages

McKendrick, Chapter 20: ‘Damages for breach of contract’ –

20.13 ‘Damages for pain and suffering and the ‘consumer

surplus’’, pp. 360-363


‘Liquidated damages’ to 21.8 ‘Liquidated damages, penalty

clauses and forfeitures: an assessment’, pp. 368-378.

Butler, Chapter 23: ‘Damages’ – 23.13 ‘Liquidated damages’, pp.

721-725.

Contract Act 1872, section(s) 74 and 75.

Addis v. Gramophone Co Ltd (1909)

Jarvis v. Swans Tours (1973)

Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v. Forsyth

(1996)

Malik v. BCCI (1997)

Johnson v. Unisys Ltd (2001)

Farley v. Skinner (2001)

Hamilton Jones v David & Snape (a firm) (2003)

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre v. New Garage and

Motor (1915)

Ford v. Armstrong (1915)

Lombard North Central v. Butterworth (1987)

KLR 2007 CC (Kar) 328(a)

PLD 1960 SC 166

1999 YLR 500

PLD 1953 LAH 400

PLD 1969 SC 80

1989 CLC 636

1999 MLD 1123

2001 MLD 1955

Module 8

Equitable Remedies

i. Specific Performance

ii. Damages in lieu of Specific

Performance

iii. Injunctions


‘Specific performance’ to 21.11 ‘Damages in lieu of specific

performance’, pp. 378-383.

Butler, Chapter 25: ‘Equitable remedies’ – 25.1 ‘Introduction’ to

25.13 ‘Measure of equitable damages’, pp. 767-780.

Beswick v. Beswick (1968)

Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd v. Argyll

Stores (Holdings) Ltd (1997)

Decro-Wall International SA v. Practitioners in

Marketing Ltd (1971)

Evans Marshall & Co Ltd v. Bertola SA (1973)

Giles v. Morris (1972)

Wroth v Tyler (1974)

Johnson v Agnew (1980)

Insurance Co v. Lloyd’s Syndicate (1995)