WJEC A-Level Law 603-1978-1
Law Making in Wales and the UK
Delegated Legislation
Statutory Interpretation
Judicial Precedent
The Civil Courts and Dispute Resolution
The Criminal Process and the Criminal Courts
Legal Personnel and the Judiciary
Access to Justice and Funding
Tort: Rules and Theory
Tort: Negligence
Tort: Occupiers' Liability
Tort: Remedies
Human Rights: Rules and TheoryHuman rights
Human Rights: Key Convention ProvisionsHuman rights
Human Rights: RestrictionsHuman rights
Human Rights: EnforcementHuman rights
Human Rights: Protection and ReformHuman rights
Contract: Rules and TheoryContract
Contract: FormationContract
Contract: TermsContract
Contract: Misrepresentation and DuressContract
Contract: DischargeContract
Contract: RemediesContract
Criminal Law: Rules and TheoryCriminal
Criminal Law: General Elements of LiabilityCriminal
Criminal Law: Offences Against the PersonCriminal
Criminal Law: Property OffencesCriminal
Criminal Law: DefencesCriminal
Criminal Law: Preliminary OffencesCriminal
Contract: Discharge
Evaluating the rules on discharge
- 3 things to know
- A2 Units 3 and 4
Overview
Main criticism of the entire obligations rule, case for retaining the entire obligations rule and case for keeping frustration narrow.
What you need to know
Answer each one before you reveal it.
State the case for keeping frustration narrow.
Is the doctrine of substantial performance too uncertain?
Questions from this subtopic
Each one with the model answer underneath.
- 1
State the main criticism of the entire obligations rule.
Model answer
It can leave a party who has done most of the work with nothing while the other side keeps the benefit, which is a forfeiture out of all proportion to the shortfall in performance.
- 2
State the case for retaining the entire obligations rule.
Model answer
It gives effect to what the parties actually agreed when they fixed a single price for a completed job, and it gives the performing party a strong incentive to finish rather than to abandon the work half done.
- 3
Is the doctrine of substantial performance too uncertain?
Model answer
It softens the harshness of the entire obligations rule, but nobody can say in advance how large a defect will defeat the claim, so a contractor cannot know whether stopping work will earn the price less a deduction or nothing at all.
- 4
Criticise the outcome in Sumpter v Hedges (1898).
Model answer
The landowner kept the value of substantial building work for nothing, and the reasoning that he had no choice about accepting it rewards the party who ends up with the benefit simply because the work was done on his land.
- 5
Explain the criticism of allowing an innocent party to affirm and claim the price after White and Carter (Councils) v McGregor (1962).
Model answer
It allows a party to press on with performance nobody wants, wasting resources and increasing the loss, when damages would fully protect its interest and the duty to mitigate would otherwise require it to stop.
- 6
State the case in favour of the decision in White and Carter (Councils) v McGregor (1962).
Model answer
A party who has contracted for performance should not be forced into a damages claim by the other side's wrongful cancellation, and later cases limit the principle to situations where the innocent party has a legitimate interest in performing.
Other ways to work this
The same content, four other ways.
What is inside Levo
Six ways to work the same material.
Every question in Contract: Discharge, on a schedule.
Attempt a question from memory, write the correct version, then attempt it again. Levo records the jump between your first attempt and your last, and brings each question back on the day you are due to forget it.
Or £46 a year, about £3.83 a month. Cancel anytime.