6. Robinson v.

Davison, (1871)

Plaintiff: Robinson

Defendant: Davison

Introduction:

A party to a contract can be excused from performance if performance depends on the

existence of that person or if the party becomes so ill that they will be unable to perform
their obligations. Therefore, where a contract requires personal performance by the
promisor, his death or incapacity will put an end to the contract. This has been well-
established in the case of Robinson v. Davison

Facts of the case

1. There was a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant’s wife who agreed to
perform piano at a concert of the plaintiff on a stipulated date.
2. But due to sudden illness she was unable to perform at the concert and this was
informed to the plaintiffs on the morning of the date of performance. This caused
the concert to be postponed and caused losses to the plaintiff.
3. The plaintiffs filed for breach of contract. The court quashed their claim and said that
the contract was frustrated as she became ill without there being any mistake or
negligence on her part.
4. The nature of the contract was such that the terms required personal performance
and incapacity by the means of illness put the contract to an end..

Issues involved in the case

1. Can the plaintiff seek compensation in the present case?

2. Could assignment of contract be allowed to a third party?

Judgment of the Court

The Court held that the performance of the present contract depended upon the personal
skills of the defendant’s wife, which in turn depended on her good health. Thus, non-
performance due to ill-health discharged the contract. Hence, no compensation could be
claimed. Also, since the contract was based on the promisor’s personal skills and capability,
it could not be assigned to a third party.

Case Analysis:

In this case, there was a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant’s wife. The
defendant’s wife was a great singer and their contract was that she should sing at a concert
organised by the plaintiff. But, on the day of the event, the defendant’s wife got ill and she
was not in a condition to sing at that particular concert. As a result of that, the plaintiff had
suffered a great loss and he sued her for the breach of contract. But the petition got failed
due to the frustration of the contract.

Conclusion

Assignment of contracts has become a common phenomenon in recent times. However, it is

important that the assignments conform to the provisions laid down by the law. It must be
carried out with the consent of the contracting parties. There are certain cases where the
assignment is not possible like the contracts which are personal in nature, where there is an
explicit provision in the contract to prohibit it, or when the law does not allow it in particular
cases. These conditions must be adhered to. In fact, our law recognises both legal and
equitable assignments. These assignments are covered under the provisions of the Transfer
of Property Act, 1882, and the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Thus, all the contracts where the
contractual rights and obligations are transferred to a third party are valid, provided all the
conditions laid down by law are followed.

7. Taylor v. Caldwell.

Plaintiff: Taylor.

Defendant: Caldwell (Surrey Music Hall owner).

Introduction: The case of Taylor v Caldwell is a fundamental case in the area of frustration
with regards to contract law. Taylor v Caldwell is an extremely important case, as Murray
states, "frustration developed to alleviate harshness of absolute obligation rule". Frustration
comes about in circumstances where the courts will discharge the parties of obligations
under the contract, therefore meaning that the parties are not liable for any further
obligations under the contract.

Facts:

1. Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a contract, in which, the Defendant agreed to
let the Plaintiff use the Surrey Gardens and Music Hall on four certain days.
2. After the signing of the contract, but before the first contract, the concert hall was
destroyed by fire.
3. The destruction was without fault of either party and was so extensive that the
concerts could not be given.
4. The plaintiff sued for a breach of the contract.

Issues:

1. Whether the loss suffered by Plaintiffs, is recoverable from the Defendant?

Judgement:

1. In this case, Justice Blackburn notes the harshness of this obligation and therefore, it
was held that the defendant was released from their obligations under the doctrine
of frustration.
2. The Defendant was discharged from performing, and his failure to perform was not a
breach of the contract. When the contract is absolute, the contractor must perform
it or pay damages for non-performance although in consequence of unforeseen
events the performance of the contract has become impossible. However, that
occurs only where the contract is absolute.
3. The contract here is subject to an implied condition that the parties shall be excused
if performance becomes impossible from the perishing of the thing without fault of
the contractor. The parties regarded the continuing existence of the hall as the
foundation of the contract, and the contract contained an implied condition that
both parties would be excused if the hall did not exist.
4. Therefore, the destruction of the hall without fault of either party excuses both
parties, the Plaintiff from taking the gardens and paying the money and the
Defendant from performing their promise to give the use of the hall.

Conclusion: The defendant is released from the obligations of the contract. The loss suffered
by the plaintiffs, which includes printing advertising for the concerts and the preparation
thereof, was not recoverable from the defendant, because of the doctrine of frustration
through the destruction of subject matter.

8. Kinds of Damages.

Damages is the word used in law for money obtained as compensation. Damages can be

1. Liquidated Damages: the amount awarded has been decided by the parties, as a genuine
pre-estimate.
2. Unliquidated Damages: No fixed amount has been decided, and the court makes an
assessment.

Liquidated damages should be distinguished from penalty clauses. Liquidated damages are a
reasonable estimate of the amount which would be needed to put right a defect, and are agreed by
the parties. These have some merit in that they save time if a breach arises, they enable parties to
make an informed decision whether to continue or to breach, and they help parties to make
insurance estimates. A penalty clause is seen as a kind of threat within a contract and will not be
upheld by the court.

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyres v New Garage (1915) Some principles emerged from this case, perhaps the
most important being that: • the use of the words ‘penalty clause’ or ‘liquidated damages’ is not
conclusive, as it is for the courts to decide within which of these categories a terms falls • an
obligation to pay an amount of money which is ‘extravagant and unconscionable’ compared to the
value of the contract may be an indication that a clause is a penalty clause.

Unliquidated damages are intended to compensate the victim and it would be reasonable to
assume that there is an assessment of loss and that this is the amount to be awarded. However, the
court has a large role to play in assessment, and a fair amount of discretion. Although the basic
principle of awarding damages is purely to compensate, the exact measure can also be used to
express disapproval or to have a deterrent effect (although it could be questioned whether this
should be the role of the criminal law). Unliquidated damages can be divided into: • substantial
damages (a normal claim reflecting the loss as accurately as possible) • nominal damages (a
minimum amount, acknowledging merely that a party has won) • exemplary damages (an unusually
large amount, representing more than the actual loss, awarded to show the court’s disapproval of
the party at fault – these are not awarded very often
9. Hobbs Vs. South West Rail & Co.

Hobbs v London and

South Western Railway
Co (1874 – 1875) LR 10
QB 111
Facts: Claimant forced
to get off and wrong
station by D and had to
walk 5 miles
home. Claimed damages
for physical
inconvenience suffered
as a result of long walk
home.
Facts:

1. The plaintiffs were passengers on a train travelling from Wimbledon to Hampton Court.
2. The plaintiffs, a father, mother and two children, were taken by the defendant railway
company to the wrong stop in the middle of the night and were compelled to walk, in the
rain, for hours, as a consequence of which the wife took ill.
 3. The plaintiffs sought damages for the inconvenience of having to walk in the middle of the
night and further sought damages for the inconvenience of the wife being unable to assist
her husband in his business due to her illness and medical expenses.
4. The defendant railway company sought to rely on Hamlin v Great Northern Railway
Company and submitted that the plaintiffs were unable to recover damages for the mere
inconvenience.

Judgement:

In the case of McMahon v Fields, the decision given in Hobbs v London & South-Western Rly Co. was
criticized and damages were allowed when the plaintiff's horses were turned out of the defendant's
stable in breach of contract and they caught a cold before an alternative accommodation could be
found for them.

Train company breached contract and caused Mr and Mrs Hobbs to alight at a different place.
Theyhad no place to stay and fell sick due to a drizzle that night. Mrs Hobbs was also very tired
sinceshe had to walk a long way back to her home. They were awarded damages.

The Court upheld an award to a husband and wife for the inconvenience of having to walk home
with young children four or five miles late on a drizzling night, although the wife’s catching of a cold
was found too remote. the jury allowed 8 euros as the damages for the inconvenience suffered.
They were awarded 8 pounds for the inconvenience they suffered. However the court noted: For the
mere inconvenience, such as annoyance and loss of temper, or vexation or for being disappointed in
a particular thing which you have set your mind upon, without real physical inconvenience resulting
you cannot recover damages.

Facts: Claimant forced

to get off and wrong
station by D and had to
walk 5 miles
home. Claimed damages
for physical
inconvenience suffered
as a result of long walk
home.
Physical
inconvenience is a
non pecuniary loss
that IS recoverable
as
damages.
Physical
inconvenience is a
non pecuniary loss
that IS recoverable
as
damages.
10. Declaratory Decree.