29. Remedies beyond compensatory damages

This chapter considers gain-based and equitable remedies for breach of contract, which can be awarded in situations where restricting the claimant to damages would be inadequate. Damages may be awarded to strip a defendant of gains made from a breach of contract. Such ‘restitutionary damages’ are only awarded very rarely in ‘exceptional circumstances’ where the usual remedies for breach of contract are ‘inadequate’, and the claimant has a legitimate interest in preventing the defendant’s profit-making activity and depriving him of his profit. Where damages are inadequate to achieve justice, the court may grant equitable relief. The most important equitable orders are for specific performance and injunctions. Specific performance compels a person to perform his contract. Injunctions can either prevent a person from breaching his contract (prohibitory injunctions) or force a person to comply with his contract (mandatory injunctions).

25. Conditions, warranties, and innominate terms

If a party fails to perform a promise in a contract, it is in breach and liable to pay damages. But some breaches of contract not only entitle the injured party to claim damages, but also to put an end to the contract. The nature of the term becomes important when considering the right to terminate. This chapter discusses the meaning and scope of conditions, warranties, and innominate terms. A party may terminate a contract for breach of condition, but never for breach of warranty. Terms that are neither conditions nor warranties are called ‘innominate’ terms. It may be possible to terminate a contract for breach of an innominate term if the breach is sufficiently serious. Breaches which justify termination are often called ‘repudiatory breaches’. The chapter also considers express termination clauses and another difficult sense in which the term ‘condition’ is used, namely to denote an ‘entire obligation’.

24. Frustration: contracts discharged for failure of a basic contractual assumption

This chapter examines contracts which were avoided because of the failure of a basic contractual assumption after the contract has been concluded. If the failure of a basic contractual assumption occurs after the contract has been concluded, the contract may be frustrated. A frustrating event kills off the contract automatically. However, everything that was done from the making of the contract up to its frustration was, and remains, validly done in pursuance of that contract. A contract cannot be frustrated where the risk of an assumption failing has been allocated to one of the parties under the contract (for example by a force majeure clause), or where the failure is attributable to the fault of one of the parties. The Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 will determine the consequences of frustration. This legislation provides a statutory mechanism for adjusting the rights of parties after a contract has been frustrated.

18. Undue influence

This chapter examines ‘undue influence’. In a typical case, C claims that a transaction should be set aside because he reposed trust and confidence in D, and the influence that D had upon C was exerted in a way which was ‘undue’. The effect is to render a contract voidable such that it can be rescinded. The basis of undue influence is controversial: it has been argued both that undue influence is based upon D’s exploitation of the relationship, and that the focus is solely upon C’s impaired consent. There are two ways of proving undue influence, which explains actual undue influence and presumed undue influence. Actual undue influence is distinct, though there are overlapping areas, from duress since there is no need to prove a threat or illegitimate pressure. Presumed undue influence requires C to prove that C placed trust in D and that the transaction calls for explanation.

14. Rectification

Rectification is an equitable remedy through which the court can rectify, or correct a mistake in a written contract. This chapter examines two principal forms of rectification: common mistake rectification and unilateral mistake rectification. Rectification for common mistake arises where both parties make the same mistake. This is the better-established form of rectification. However, in some circumstances rectification for unilateral mistake will be granted in situations where only one party is mistaken but the other party has acted unconscionably or dishonestly. A party seeking rectification will need convincing proof that a mistake has been made before the court will contemplate altering the language chosen in a formal, written document.

8. Intention to create legal relations

This chapter discusses the intention to create legal relations in the formation of a contract in domestic or social and commercial transactions. In a domestic or social context, there is a presumption that the parties do not intend to create legal relations. In a commercial context, however, the reverse applies and it is presumed that the parties do intend to create legal relations. No matter which presumption initially applies, that presumption may be rebutted by evidence to the contrary. The chapter concludes that it will not always be easy to decide whether an arrangement is more ‘social’ than ‘commercial’ due to the lack of unanimity in cases such as Esso Petroleum Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise. Courts continue to be split on whether or not an intention to create legal relations is present in particular disputes.

3. Formation of bilateral contracts

This chapter analyses the key elements traditionally required for the formation of a bilateral contract. Contracts are bargains. The natural way to make a bargain is for one side to propose the terms and the other to agree to them. So contracts are almost invariably made by a process of offer and acceptance. However, the lack of offer and acceptance does not necessarily preclude the existence of a contract, if a bargain can be discerned from the facts in some other way. The chapter begins by explaining what constitutes an offer, and discusses various common scenarios. It then examines the requirements of acceptance, since this is what is required for a contract to be concluded. It considers the possibilities that an offer might be revoked by the offeror; or rejected by the offeree; or the offeree might ask for further information; or the offer might lapse.

28. Agreed remedies

This chapter focusses on remedies agreed by the parties for breach of contract. Parties may wish to include a term in the contract which dictates what should happen in the event of breach of contract. If the term states that a certain amount of money should be paid upon breach, that term might be valid as a liquidated damages clause or unenforceable as a penalty. If the amount chosen is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, or is ‘commercially justified’, then it is likely to be valid. If the defaulting party had already paid money to the innocent party as a deposit, the innocent party may be able to forfeit that deposit. A term stipulating that specific performance or an injunction will be granted upon breach will not bind the court. However, the court may take into account such a term when deciding whether to exercise its equitable discretion.

23. Common mistake: contracts void for failure of a basic contractual assumption

This chapter examines contracts which were avoided because of the failure of a basic contractual assumption before the contract has been concluded. If a contract has been concluded based on a particular contractual assumption, then the failure of that assumption before the contract has been concluded means that the contract is void. This is because both parties have made a fundamental mistake about a basic assumption. A contract cannot be void due to a common mistake where the risk of an assumption failing has been allocated to one of the parties under the contract, or where the failure is attributable to the fault of one of the parties. Very few assumptions are held to be ‘basic’; the threshold is set at a very high level. The failure of the assumption must, at the very least, render performance of the contract fundamentally different from what was reasonably envisaged.

22. Illegality and restraint of trade

This chapter analyses the law on illegality and restraint of trade. The law on illegality is very complicated. Illegal acts vary greatly in range and severity. The Supreme Court has recently held that a ‘range of factors’ need to be considered when deciding whether the claimant’s illegality should defeat a claim, and it is likely that the law will become increasingly flexible in this area. Restraint of trade is concerned with balancing the competing rights of private parties, notably the employer’s right to expect a certain degree of loyalty as regards his business against the employee’s freedom to leave his employment and to undertake new business activities. The key consideration tends to be whether restraint of trade clauses are reasonable.