View
227
Download
1
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Lahore University of Management Sciences
Law 220 – Contract Law Fall & 2012
Instructor Saad Rasool
Room No.
Office Hours
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
Lahore University of Management Sciences
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.
Lahore University of Management Sciences
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
Lahore University of Management Sciences
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)
Lahore University of Management Sciences
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.
Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1893)
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)
Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1893)
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
Lahore University of Management Sciences
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
Lahore University of Management Sciences
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
Lahore University of Management Sciences
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
Lahore University of Management Sciences
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
Lahore University of Management Sciences
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
Lahore University of Management Sciences
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.
Contract Act 1872, section 36.
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.
Contract Act 1872, section 39.
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
Lahore University of Management Sciences
(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
Lahore University of Management Sciences
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
McKendrick, Chapter 21: ‘Obtaining an adequate remedy’ – 21.5
‘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
McKendrick, Chapter 21: ‘Obtaining an adequate remedy’ – 21.9
‘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)
Recommended