Contract is made between the parties who are intended to bind together in a legal obligation i.e.to serve the interest of both the parties. The parties, in order to govern themselves and tosafeguard their interest make their own terms and conditions. And when such terms andconditions are accepted by both the parties, there is an enactment of the contract i.e. the liabilityis imposed on the party to the contract and to function in accordance with the terms andconditions of the contract.
Though many a times, the contracting parties work according to the terms and conditions of theother party, there are instances when one party back steps, thus leading to the loss to other party.
This is referred as repudiation. According to the section 39 of the Indian contract Act, “Anyintimation whether by words or by conduct that the party declines to continue with the contract isrepudiation, if the result is likely to deprive the innocent party of substantial the benefit of thecontract”
Thus, repudiation can occur when the either party refuses to perform his part, or makes itimpossible for him to perform or even fails to perform his part of contract in each of the cases insuch a manner as to show an intention not to fulfill his part of the contract.
Breach of contract is defined is a legal cause of action in which a binding agreement orbargained for exchange is not honoured by one or more parties to the contract by non-performanceor interference with the other party’s performance. It the party does not fulfill his contractualpromise, or has given information to the other party that he will not perform his duty asmentioned in the contract or if by his action and conduct he seems to be unable to perform thecontract, he is said to be breach of contract.
Thus when a party having a duty to perform a contract fails to do that, or does an act whereby the performance of the contract by him becomesimpossible, or he refuses to perform the contract, there is said to be a breach of contract on hispart. On the breach of contract by the one party, the other party is discharged of his obligations toperform his part of the obligations.
Breach of a contract does not discharge the contract, thereby automatically termination theobligation of the innocent party. It gives an opinion to the innocent party to regard itself asdischarged. The innocent party rescinds the contract, the primary obligation of both the parties isover, but the defaulting parties become liable for payment of compensation for the breach. Theinnocent party may also waive the defective performance and elect to accept damages instead ofending the contract.
The breach of contract may be either: (i) actual, i.e. non-performance of the contract on the duedate of performance, or (ii) anticipatory, i.e. before the due date of the performance has come.Thus, when the party to the contract refuses to do an act or does an act at the time of theperformance of the contract then it is said to be the actual breach of the contract, but when theparty to the contract refuses to do an act or does an act before the time of performance by whichthe performance of the contract is not possible, the such breach is known as the anticipatorybreach of contract.
A contract is a legally binding promise made between two parties. Each party to a contract promises to perform a certain duty, or pay a certain amount for a specified item or service. The purpose of a contract being legally binding is so each party will have legal recourse in the event of a breach.
A breach of contract occurs when the promise of the contract is not kept, because one party has failed to fulfill their agreed upon obligations, according to the terms of the contract. Breaching can occur when one party fails to deliver in the appropriate time frame, does not meet the terms of the agreement, or fails perform at all.
Further, if one party fails to perform while the other party fulfills their obligations, the performing party is entitled to legal remedies for breach of contract.
There are four main types of contract breaches:
An oral contract is a contract in which the terms are agreed upon verbally, whereas a written contract is a written document. Generally, oral contracts are enforceable and legally binding; however, not every type of contract can be enforceable when they are oral as opposed to written.
Some specific types of contracts must be in writing in order to be enforceable. These may include:
Thus, if you are selling your car for more than five hundred dollars, a simple verbal agreement will not be enforceable, instead you will need to draw up a written contract.
The types of legal remedies available for breach of contract depends largely on the severity of the breach. Generally, damages awarded are categorized into four groups:
If there has been a breach of contract, you should first thoroughly review the contract to see if any instructions regarding a breach were built into the contract. Mandatory arbitration or a liquidated damages clause are two examples of such instructions.
Second, you should let the other party know that there has been a breach. If you committed the breach, it is better to own up to it before it is found out, which could lead to more serious consequences. If the other party committed the breach, it is best to give them an opportunity to rectify the situation before taking legal action.
It is highly important that you maintain any documentation related to the contract. Carefully record every incident that occurs as a result of the contract. Doing so will make it easier to argue your side should the breach result in legal action.
A skilled and knowledgeable contract attorney will be able to represent you in court, as well as ensure you are educated on state specific laws regarding breach of contract. Additionally, they will ensure the meeting of deadlines and filing dates, and help you determine what remedies may be available for your specific situation.
In today’s globalized world, thousands of companies engage in business which involves millions of consumers. Thus, it would be difficult for these companies to draw up separate contract withevery individual, they came out with Standard Form of Contract, whereby a standard form witha large number of terms and conditions are there restricting the liability of the party to the contract.The individuals can hardly bargain with the massive organizations and therefore theonly option available to them is either to accept it or reject it.
The doctrine of "Fundamental Breach" in the Law of Contract has developed mainly in the areas of sale (and hire-purchase), bailment and carriage. In the last two areas, the difficulty isfrequently not so much one of assessing the character of the obligation (i.e., is it a "condition" ora "Fundamental Obligation" as determining the gravity of the breach. In this respect, the distribution of the onus of proof often acquires a new importance in such cases. The customer is in no position to renegotiate the standard terms of the contracts and the company’s representative usually does not have the authority to do so. Such contracts are also known as – “Contracts of Adhesion” which means that the individuals have no choice „but to accept; he does not negotiate, but merely adhesion‟, “Compulsory Contracts”, they being a kind of imposition; and “Private Legislation‟, they being a kind of kind of code of bye-laws on the basis of which the individuals can enjoy the services offered.
Thus, in order to protect the weaker section from exploitation. It is a method of controlling unreasonable consequences of wide and sweeping exemption clauses. Even where adequate notice of the terms and conditions in a document has been given, the party imposing these conditions may not be able to rely on them if he has committed a breach of contract which can be described as Fundamental. This has been laid down by Lord Denning LJ in J. Spurling Ltd. V Bradshaw.
The Supreme Court of India also emphasized on the same rule in B.V. Nagaraju v Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. &; Every contract contains a & core; or fundamental obligation must beperformed. If one party fails to perform this fundamental obligation, he will be guilty of a breach of contract whether or not any exempting clause has been inserted which purports to protect him.
In Davies v Collins it was held that the mere fact of the particular limitation clause in the contract was sufficient to exclude any right to the sub-contract the performance of the substance of the contract. Limitation clauses of this kind do not apply Fundamental breach of contract is referred by the Devlin J. in Smeaton Hanscombe v. Sassoon I.Settywherein the learned justice say in effect that it is a concept narrower that than the concept “condition”. It refers to so meeting that goes to the root of the contract. In this regard following observations has been made by the Lord Reid in the House of Lords' are pertinent: -"I think that it would be open to the arbitrators to find that the respondents had committed a fundamental breach of contract.
One way of looking at the matter would be to ask whether the party in breach has by his breach produced a situation fundamentally different from anything which the parties could as reasonable men have contemplated when the contract was made. Then one would have to ask not only what had already happened but also what was likely to happen in future. And there the fact that the breach was deliberate might be of great importance".
Section 39 of the Indian Contract Act provides that if a person indulges in any fundamental breach of the contract and the other party does not acquiesce to the breach, then the party not breaching is not bound under the liabilities of the contract. This would, therefore, enable a party to terminate a contract on the ground of substantial failure by the other party which goes to the root of the contract.
In our country question of delay in performance of the contract is governed by Sections 55 and 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. If there is an abnormal rise in prices of material and labour, it may frustrate the contract and then the innocent party need not perform the contract. So also, if time is of the essence of the contract, failure of the employer to perform a mutual obligation would enable the contractor to avoid the contract as the contract becomes voidable at his option, where time is "of the essence" of an obligation, Chitty on Contracts.
States a failure to perform by the stipulated time will entitle the innocent party to (a) terminate performance of the contract and thereby put an end to all the primary obligations of both parties remaining unperformed; and (b) claim damages from the contract-breaker on the basis that he has committed a fundamental breach of the contract ('a breach going to the root of the contract') depriving the innocent party of the benefit of the contract ('damages for loss of the whole transaction').
According to the statement of the unofficial Secretariat Commentary on the 1978 Draft Convention,12 scholars from different legal systems debated on standards for determining whether a breach is fundamental. A consensus was reached that the determination must be made in the light of the circumstances of each case. There is no such agreement, however there are some relevant factors, as generated by scholars and practitioner, in determining whether an injury is substantial enough to amount to fundamental breach which are roughly categorized under the following headings: a) nature of the contractual liability; b)gravity of the circumstances of breach; c) remedy-oriented approach; d) (in)ability of performance; e) (un)willingness to perform; f) lack of reliance on the other’sparty’s future performance; g) offer to cure; and h)possible cure.
Wherein the learned justice says in effect that it is a concept narrower than the concept "condition." Here there was such a breach because the car was incapable of self-propulsion. Denning L.J. adopted a similar line of reasoning except that he says that a breach of a fundamental term is something that goes to the root of a contract.
This is unobjectionable if his further statement that it is something "different in kind" is regarded as exegetic but not if regarded as an alternative, since the term " goes to the root" is usually used as wide enough to cover conditions. On the point as to pleadings, the court allowed the submission that there was a breach of a fundamental term, as revealed by the facts, to be received notwithstanding that the pleadings did not sufficiently make this clear. They further held that the claim for the installments could never have succeeded, because the hirer refused delivery: the proper remedy is damages. On that the plaintiffs would have been in a difficulty if they had sought damages for, apart from the fundamental breach, they had only taken an assignment of the right to the payments of hire. A similar point on what is a fundamental breach arose in the case of the Caspiana (G. H. Renton, Ltd. v. Palmyra Trading Corporation of Panama)
It will be of interest to see whether the Law Lords adopt or amplify the principle involved, and in particular, whether they make clear the distinction between a condition and a fundamental term. Conclusion: - THE facts in Karsales (Harrow) Ltd. v. Wallis' were classic and it was a pity that the judgments do not quite reach the potential heights that were attainable. But it is a useful case
The shop assistant handed her a documents headed „Receipts‟ which she was asked to sign. Before doing so, Curtis asked the assistant why her signature was required. She was told that it was because the shop would not accept liability for certain specified risks including the risk of damage by or to the beads and sequins with which the dress was trimmed. Curtis then signed the receipt, which in fact states. This… article is accepted on condition that the company is not liable for any damage howsoever arising. When the dress was returned to Curtis, there was a stain on it. Curtis claimed that the shop has been negligent and brought an action against the shop claiming damages of 32 euros. The shop sought to rely on the exemption clause contained in the signed receipt.
Issues: - (1) Whether the oral assurance given by the shop assistant overrode the written agreement so as to negate or modify the exemption clause.
Judgment: - As the judgment delivered by the Lord Denning held that it was an important case because many people signed the printed forms without reading them, only to afterwards that they exemption contain the stringent clauses exempting the other side from their common-law liability. In every such case it must be remembered that, if a person wishes to exempt himself from a liability which the common law imposes on him, he can only do it by an express stipulation brought home to the party affected, and assented to by him as part of the contract. He referred to Olley v. Marlborough Court, if the party affected sign written documents, knowing it to be a contract which governs the relations between them, his signature is irrefragable evidence of his assent to the whole contract, including exempting clauses, unless the signature is shown to be obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. In the present case, the customer knew from what the assistant said that the document contained conditions. If nothing was said she might not have known it. In that case, the documents might reasonably be understood to be like a boot repairer,
law liability for negligence. In that case it would not protect the cleaners: see Chapelton v. Berry Urban District Council. I say this because I do not wish it to be supposed that the cleaners would have been off if the assistant had simply handed over the document to the customer were not so inquiring as the plaintiff, but were an unsuspecting person who signed what was asked without question .In those circumstances the conduct of the cleaners might well be such that it conveyed no conditions, or, at any rate, no condition exempting them form their common-law liability, in which case they could not rely on it.
In my opinion when the signature to a condition, purporting to exempt a person from his common-law liabilities, is obtained by an innocent misrepresentation, the party who has made that misrepresentation is disentitled to reply on the exemption.
Owing to the large scale commercialization of the activities, the companies which serves the millions of consumers daily started making a contract with them with the help of a Standard form of Contract, which enables them to occupy a large market share, as dealing with a separate consumer separately which requires a separate contract with them, which in turn is a time consuming process and a costly one. So, the companies started adopting the Standard Form of Contract, which contains the general terms and conditions in a form and each customer is provided with that form. But since such type of contract are known as “leave it or take it, there are possibilities that the weaker party i.e. the client is in a position of exploitation. The client does not have appropriate legal remedy since it accepted the terms and conditions and signed it. To enable the protection for the weaker section of the society, the court developed the doctrine of Fundamental breach or fundamental terms.
Fundamental breach protects the interest of the weaker party to the contract. It provides the remedy if there is a breach which is going to the root level, thus the purpose of which does not fulfills. The Lord Parker Judgment in Karsales (Harrow) Ltd. V. Wallis clearly states that when there was a duty on a hire-purchase finance company to ascertain the conditions of the chattel is fit so that it will serve the purpose for which is bought. Thus, the purpose for which something is purchased and it is not in a position to serve that purpose, the contract is said to be void on account of the breach i.e. fundamental breach of contract. Although, if the seller or buyer puts a conditional clause in the agreement, then also there is a breach of fundamental term. The said breach is not acceptable to the Courts, which provides the appropriate remedy either to compensate the aggrieved party or to restore the position as it was before the contract.
The Court in Curtis v. chemical Cleaning & Dyeing Co held that the cases on which the party So to the contract wishes to exempt himself from a liabliitty which the common law imposes on him, he can only do it by an express stipulation brought home to the party affected and assented to by him as a part of the contract. Thus in the view of Lord Denning,
“when the signature to a condition, purporting to exempt a person from his common-law liabilities, is obtained by an innocent misrepresentation, the party who has made that misrepresentation is disentitled to reply 21 on the exemption.
”Thus the contract which are violates the terms and conditions of the said agreement, then it amounts to the fundamental breach of contract. Thus, in order to provide appropriate remedy, the court can compensate the party who is in a loss or restore the contract back to its origin. Again it was held that whether a breach constitutes a fundamental breach has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of the each case. There is no hard and fast rule to determine a fundamental breach, it is based upon the case to case basis.