Termination of the Contractual Relationship - Essay Example

Task: Case: Anthea and the concert Discharge of a contract can be described as the release or “termination” of the “contractual relationship between the parties” involved (Mercantile Law, n.d.). Discharge by performance occurs when the parties are gracefully discharged from the contract after satisfaction and completion of the stated terms. In that case when a party fulfils their part and the other does not, then the latter is not discharged and they may be sued for breach. According to the case of Anthea and The Concert, the performing artists did discharge the contract that they had indulged in due to lack of performance. This is because, they were sighed up to perform at the Hamden Hall and just a few days before the concert each artist had a problem that apparently caused them not perform. In addition to that, Anthea had already paid these artists a 25% fee of the total amount of money that they were to receive and the rest was to be paid after they did actually perform at the concert, which they did not. Therefore, it is evidenced that Anthea was the only party that did duly perform her part in the contract while other performance artists did not. Therefore, by law, Anthea has the right to take legal action against the performance artists as they did not abide by their part of the contract. As a result, one of the claims that the Student Union is prone to get is a refund of their money from the performance artists as they took the money without attending to their call of performance. This case can be compared to the one of Cutter v Powell (1795). Powell promised Cutter that if he took the role as his running mate, he would top him up with “a total of thirty guineas, provided he proceeds, continues and does his duty as second mate in the said ship from hence to the port of Liverpool. Unfortunately Cutter died at sea. His widow sued Powell to recover a proportionate part of her husband's wages on a quantum meruit for work and labour done by her husband during that part of the voyage that he lived and served Powell” (Legal Max, n.d.). Unfortunately, “payment was on condition that he worked the ship to Liverpool, since he did not fulfil this condition the widow was entitled to nothing” (E-Law Resources, n.d.). When compared to the case of Anthea and The Concert, it can be concluded that Anthea did fulfil her end of the contract by paying them the 25% initial fee. Since the performance artists did not perform then they are entitled to nothing. Bolton v Mahadeva [1972] is another case that can be termed as similar to the Anthea and The concert case. In this instance, “The claimant installed central heating in the defendant's home. The agreed contract price was ?560. The defendant was not happy with the work and refused to pay. Defects in the work amounted to ?174. The action by the claimant to enforce the payment failed since the court held there was no substantial performance” (E-Law Resources, n.d.). The comparison that can be deduced in this case is that, the plaintiff did install the heating system which had defects that amounted to an extra ?174. In addition to that the client had already incurred a total cost of up to ?560. Therefore, the plaintiff claimed that the balance should have been less the extra cost of ?174. When compared to the Anthea and The Concert claim, the performance artists would have come to the concert to perform but they would not have done it well due to the challenges that they were facing. With this case, one of the liabilities that the student council ought to be aware of is that despite the fact that they did perform their duty by paying the 25% fee initially, they ought to have had an exception in the contract that would cater for such kinds of calamities. For example, they would have drafted a clause that would ensure that a party in the contract is only paid when they have performed their duties or obligations as part and parcel of the stated terms in the contract so as to avoid instances where they pay the artist and they do not show up and they lag in making the refund. Condor v Baron Knights [1966] is a case that can be related to Bobbie Williams. He claimed that he had a bad cold. According to the Condor v Baron Knights [1966], “a 16 year old agreed by contract to play the drums for the defendant band for 7 nights per week for 5 years. The claimant suffered a mental breakdown and was told by his doctor that he should not perform more than 4 nights per week. The band dismissed him. He brought a claim for wrongful dismissal” (E-Law Resources, n.d.). If Bobbie was to perform he would have done so it would have been a bad performance. This case can be compared to the Bolton v Mahadeva [1972] case of unprofessional performance. The contract was held as frustrated. Robinson Vs Davidson (1871) was the case of a pianist who was ill and could not perform. This case was held as “frustrating”. The performing artists that Anthea has called upon could have termed that their illnesses and calamities did not allow them to perform and as a result, Anthea would not be in a position to sue them (Glaister, 2012). Teri Talliwell was the other artist who it was claimed that he was killed in an accident. When compared to the Condor v Baron Knights [1966] case where the plaintiff was claimed to be suffering from an illness and he could not perform, it can be confirmed that the death of Teri Talliwell made it impossible to fulfil the contract. Therefore Anthea ought to try getting a refund from the family members of Teri Talliwell by following the procedure of the Bolton v Mahadeva [1972] case and later dissolving the contract as it would have been impossible to enact due to inability to perform. Toyzone is the band that apparently went to prison for allegedly not paying council tax. A comparison to this case is the one of Norris Vs Southampton City Council where the Norris, plaintiff who was a cleaner was imprisoned for various offences. This case was taken to court and it ended up being termed as “not frustrated” since the plaintiff had committed a lot of offences that would definitely lead to automatic breach of the contract. When compared to Toyzone, they may be assumed to be individuals who are rogue and have a list of serious offences. So a contract with the band is more of frustrating. This same case can help Anthea find a suitable way to deal with Adam Bryan who happened to gash his fingers and he could not perform. A contract that has been discharged by frustration occurs when there are certain circumstances that may occur and they may lead to an outcome that was not expected. When compared to the Anthea and The Concert case, it can be determined that the artists could have actually claimed that the illnesses that they endured were beyond their control and they could not be avoided by any chance. Therefore each party can exit from the contract gracefully without being sued for breach. As a result, any loss in accordance to that is “decided by the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943”. According to Section 1(2): “All sums paid or payable to any party in pursuance of the contract before the time when the parties were so discharged ... shall, in the case of the sums so paid, be recoverable from him as money received by him for the use of the party by whom the sums are paid, and, in the case of sums so payable, cease to be so payable: Provided that, if the party to whom the sums were so paid or payable incurred expenses before the time of discharge in, or the purpose of, the performance of the contract, the court may, if it considers it just to do so having regard to all the circumstances of the case, allow him to retain or, as the case may be, recover the whole or any part of the sums so paid or payable, not being an amount in excess of the expenses so incurred” (Insite Law Magazine, n.d.). Anthea got a replacement performance artist, Kylie Donovan who sought to fix up the schedule on a later date. When compared to the Chandler Vs Webster (1904) case where the contract was based on a room that was being hired on a specific day and it was postponed to another day. The conclusion for this case was that it was held as being “frustrating” as it was not duly performed, and for the case of Anthea, she was in a dilemma of whether to pay the bill or not. The Herne Bay Steam Boat v Hutton [1903] case was concluded as “commercially not frustrating”. When compared to the Anthea case it was frustrating because the hall was not used and she was required to pay the whole amount. This can be concluded as being unrealistic and unfair (Contract Law Case Notes, n.d.). The case of Fibrosa Spolka v Fairbairn [1943] was related to an English company that was supposed to supply machinery to a Polish company. Payments were ?1,600 upfront and ?3,200 balance on delivery. The Polish company paid ?1000 as an initial payment until “Germany invaded Poland and on 3rd Sept Great Britain declared war on Germany”. Therefore it became illegal for British companies to trade with Poland (Bailii, n.d.). The contract was hard to honour due to illegality. Hamden Hall sent a bill that Anthea should pay the 200 pounds charge for using the hall and putting up the decorations. Anthea must not pay the entire bill until the artists have refunded the initial fee that they were paid. Anthea should speak to the management and she could only cater for the charges that were related to the decorations since the concert was not undertaken. As cited from Stone (2002), a previous case was of Krell v Henry where the hirer of the room did pay a deposit that was irrecoverable. If Anthea had paid the whole amount, them the management at the Hall would not have refunded her. When compared to the Chandler v Webster case where the plaintiff agreed to hire a room and, “the defendant repeatedly wrote to the plaintiff asserting that by the agreement the price of the room was immediately payable and demanding payment of it” (Law and Sea, n.d.). If Anthea was to pay the whole amount it could be termed as “failure of consideration” (Stone, 2002). Works cited Bailii n.d., Fibrosa spolka akcyjna v. Fairbairn lawson combe barbour, limited. Web. Retrieved from: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1942/4.html [Accessed: 11 May 2013]. Contract Law Case Notes n.d. Herne Bay Steam Boat Co. v Hutton [1903] 2 KB 683; King's Bench Division Web. Retrieved from: http://netk.net.au/contract/herne.asp [Accessed: 11 May 2013]. E-Law Resources n.d., Cutter v Powell EWHC KB J13. Web. Retrieved from: http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Cutter-v-Powell.php [Accessed: 11 May 2013]. E-Law Resources n.d., Bolton v Mahadeva 1 WLR 1009 . Web. Retrieved from: http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Cutter-v-Powell.php [Accessed: 11 May 2013]. E-Law Resources n.d., Condor v Baron Knights 1 WLR 87. Web. Retrieved from: http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Cutter-v-Powell.php [Accessed: 11 May 2013]. Glaister. (2012) Frustrated contracts. Web. Retrieved from: http://www.glaister.co.nz/frustrated_contracts [Accessed: 11 May 2013]. Insite Law Magazine n.d., Discharge of Contracts. Web. Retrieved from: http://www.insitelawmagazine.com/ch14discharge.htm [Accessed: 11 May 2013]. Legal Max n.d., Cutter v Powell .Web. Retrieved from: http://www.legalmax.info/members2/conbook/acknowle.htm#cutter_v.htm [Accessed: 11 May 2013]. Law and Sea n.d., Chandler v Webster 1 KB 493. Web. Retrieved from: http://www.lawandsea.net/List_of_Cases/C/Chandler_v_Webster_1904_1_KB_493.html [Accessed: 11 May 2013]. Mercantile Law n.d., Discharge of a contract. PDF. Web. Retrieved from: http://220.227.161.86/16817Discharge.pdf [Accessed: 11 May 2013]. Stone, Richard. (2002) The modern law of contract, UK: Routledge. Print Read More