Legal Case Study

857 Words2 Pages

Legal Case Study Tom agrees to give Ellen private tuition for her Law of Contract examination to held in eight months time. The fee is £300, of which Ellen pays £25, with the balance to be paid on completion of the tuition. Tom spends £50 in the preparation of some printed tuition notes. After two months Tom goes to Spain for a week long holidays at Christmas. Whilst on the holiday he is arrested, having been mistaken for Tim, and detained for two months. On his return he discovers that Ellen has engaged another tutor and is demanding the return of her £25. Tom sues for the balances of the £275. Discuss. How would your answer differ, if at all, if Tom had been detained for careless driving? SUGGESTED ANSWER : In advising Tom it has to be determined whether the contract between Tom and Ellen has been frustrated. And if so what are their right and liabilities. Frustration occurs when without default of either party to the contract, the contractual obligation has became incapable of being performed Amalgamated Investment v John Walker. There are 2 test for frustration. By the Implied Term Theory test there is an implied term in every contract that if the contract is incapable of being performance without default of either party the contract is discharged, B Blackburn J in Taylor v Caldwell. The theory has been substantially replaced by the radical change in obligation test by Lord Radcliffe in Davies v Fareham UDC. Fr... ... middle of paper ... ... Shea The mode of calculating “valuable benefit” under S1(3) was stated by Robert Golf in BP Explorations v Hunt. First the benefit conferred by Tom would be the knowledge that he had imported to Ellen during the two months. Secondly what is the effect of frustration on the benefit ie the value of the benefit now after frustration. Here although the contract is frustrated the knowledge that Ellen had acquired has not been destroyed. Thirdly the court must assess a “just sum” as Robert Goff said the Act is surprisingly silent but the court may take into account the contract sum. Which here is ₤300 Finally the party conferring the benefit will either receive sum representing the value of benefit or a just sum, whichever is lower. Therefore Tom may claim for either 2 or 3 above whichever is lesser.

More about Legal Case Study

Open Document