Academic literature on the topic 'Obligations arising from defective performance'

Damages Arising from Non-Performance of Contractual Obligations. Molavi & khatesevom, 1989.

Balodis, Kaspars. "Apstākļu izmaiņu ietekme uz līguma saistošo spēku un labas ticības princips." In Tiesības un tiesiskā vide mainīgos apstākļos. LU Akadēmiskais apgāds, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.22364/juzk.79.13.

"first is under an entire performance obligation. An early example of this can be found in the old case of Cutter v Powell, under which a seaman agreed to work a ship from its port of embarkation to its destination and back in return for a fixed sum. In the absence of a doctrine of frustration, it was held that, if the round trip was not completed, for whatever reason, the seaman did not become entitled to payment. In other instances, performance obligations on one side may be subdivided with the result that as each part of the total obligation is completed, the other party comes under an obligation to perform his side of the contract. In these circumstances, the performance obligations are described as severable. Typical examples can be found in construction contracts which provide for payment in stages as the work progresses or instalment contracts for the sale of goods under which the buyer is required to pay separately for each instalment as it is delivered. The importance of the distinction between entire and severable obligations is that there are different rules as to the order of performance and in respect of the matter of defective performance. If the seller is under an entire obligation to deliver goods at a particular time, and he fails to do so, the buyer will not be obliged to pay the price. Conversely, if there is a severable instalment contract for the sale of goods and the seller fails to deliver one instalment out of ten, the seller may be able to claim payment for those parts of the work correctly performed. Generally, sale of goods contracts consist of entire obligations. If the seller delivers less or more than the quantity of goods contracted for, the buyer is entitled to reject the entire consignment, subject to minor deviations in which case the court has a discretion in non-consumer transactions to refuse to allow rejection if this remedy can be regarded as unreasonable: Sale of Goods Act 1979." In Sourcebook on Contract Law. Routledge-Cavendish, 1995. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781843141518-209.

"to recover damages. If an action for damages still lies, it follows from this that the contract itself must have survived for some purposes. Accordingly, the better view is that, where there is a repudiatory breach, the innocent party is discharged from performing his obligations under the contract, but the contract itself does not necessarily come to an end. The phrase ‘rescission for breach’ is the source of the confusion when it is used to describe discharge from performance. Assuming it is merely the obligation to perform that is discharged by breach, events arising after breach which allow an action for damages do not present a problem. Moreover, terms of the contract which relate to those events are also unaffected by the discharge. Accordingly, it can be said that there are primary and secondary obligations under a contract and the effect of the innocent party seeking discharge for breach is that he is no longer bound to perform his primary obligations, although the contract will survive in order to see off any secondary obligations such as the duty of the party in breach to pay damages in respect of any loss he has caused. Similarly, the likes of exclusion and limitation clauses which generally relate to a secondary obligation may continue to operate, even if this has the effect of reducing the defendant’s liability. In Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd, the respondents were a security company employed to guard the appellants’ premises. The service provided was one of the cheapest on offer by the respondents and consisted of little more than ‘flying’ visits to the appellants’ premises. During one of these visits one of the respondents’ employees negligently set a fire which caused extensive damage to the premises. It was accepted by the House of Lords that there was a serious breach of contract which was sufficient to allow the appellants to treat as being at an end their obligation to continue paying for the security service (primary obligation). However, a clause in the contract which limited the respondents’ liability continued to operate as it related to their obligation to pay damages (secondary obligation): Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] AC 827, p 848." In Sourcebook on Contract Law. Routledge-Cavendish, 1995. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781843141518-223.