| CHAPTER 4 – TERMINATION OF CONTRACTS | ||
| Topic | Case | Brief Description |
| Termination – by performance : discharge of specific performance à fail to sue payment | Cutter v Powell (1795) 6 Term Rep 320 | 甲被聘協助乙航海從牙買加至英國，途中甲離世，其遺產代理索取航船酬勞，官判因其未完成合約航程故不獲發酬勞 |
| Termination – by performance : prevention of performance à reasonable payment | Planché v Colburn (1831) 8 BinG 14 | 出版社停刊，作家未能完成寫作責任，官判出版社需付作家合理酬勞 |
| Termination – by performance : prevention of performance à substantial performance | Hoenig v Isaacs [1952] 2 All ER 176 | 裝修後客人對部份裝修不滿，官判裝修工可索扣去不及格部份之酬勞 |
| Termination – by performance : prevention of performance à substantial performance | Bolton v Mahadeva [1972] 1 WLR 1009 | 熱管裝置公司之安裝不符基本要求且多處需再維修，官判無權索取約定酬勞 |
| Termination – anticipatory breach | The Santa Clara [1996] AC 800 | Vitol 向 Norelf 買貨，後知悉船期延誤提前通知 Norelf 合約中止，由於 Norelf 沒有進一步表示，官判此視作黙認及接受合約中止 |
| Termination – anticipatory breach – two qualifications to claim entire sum | White & Carter v Mc Gregor [1961] 3 All E.R. 1178 HL [1961] | 甲與乙協議，甲裝新垃圾筒，協議當日而甲尚未開始任何裝新工作之前乙表示取消協議，甲拒絕並繼績完成垃圾筒裝新 |
| Termination – anticipatory breach (?) – IP duty to mitigate loss | Brace v Calder [1895] 2 QB 253 | 合夥人解體由原四人變二人，原聘之經理因該解體欲中止其與原合黟人之合約 |
| Termination by Agreement – accord and satisfaction rule
|
Pinnel’s Case [1602] 5 Co Rep 117a | <also covered in Chapter 1B – Consideration ) à related to part payment of debt |
| Termination by Agreement – no binding accord | Ferguson v Davies [1997] 1 All E.R. 315 | 甲乙交換唱片，甲最終只交付少於合約金額之支票，乙兌現支票，官判支票兌現不代表不能要求甲付還剩餘債項 |
| Termination by frustration –
(1) frustration only occurs where a supervening event goes to the very root of the contract (2) disapprove ‘implied term’ approach è instead, radically different (NOT frustration) |
Davis Contractors v Fareham Urban DC [1956] AC 696. | 建屋協議定8 個月完成，後發現人工及物料短缺致需22個月，官判因只是較預期困難及貴，不足以構成 frustration
ð a case related to loss of profits/ increase in expenses |
| Termination by frustration – subject matter destroyed (frustration) | Taylor v Caldwell (1869) 3 B & S 826 | 音樂會埸地火燭 |
| Termination by frustration – stipulated method of performance (NOT frustration) | Tsakiroglou & Co Ltd v Noblee Thorl GmbH [1962] AC 93 | 運花生航線需更改，因一般使用之航道被封，另一航道則另航費大增，官判不算 frustration，因另一航道雖貴但仍是一個選擇，沒有另該航運協議完全 impossible
ð a case related to loss of profits/ increase in expenses |
| Termination by frustration – subject matter not available (frustration) | Condor v Barron Knights Ltd. [1966] 1 W.L.R. 87 | 鼓手病了，官判 frustration |
| Termination by frustration – subject matter not available (frustration) | Shepherd (FC) & Co. Ltd v Jerrom [1986] IRLR 358, CA | 少年犯因守行為要離開公司6 個月，官判 frustration |
| Termination by frustration – subject matter not available (frustration) | Gamerco SA v ICM /Fair Warning (Agency) Ltd. [1995] 1 W.L.R. 1226 | 演唱會埸地不予進行演唱，官行使酌情權令原告全數討回已付之款項，而不用從中扣除被告之消費成本 |
| Termination by frustration – failure of specific events (frustration) | Krell v Henry [1903] 2 KB 740 | 甲租房作觀賞皇帝巡遊，後因皇帝病了致巡遊取消 |
| Termination by frustration – failure of specific events (NOT frustration) | Herne Bay Steam Boat Co v Hutton [1903] 2 KB 683 | 租船參觀海軍巡演及作一日繞艦隊巡航，海軍巡演但不構成 frustration, 因巡航仍可繼績 |
| Termination by frustration – supervening illegality (frustration) | Re Shipton, Anderson and Harrison Brothers [1915] 3 KB 676
|
政府因戰事徵用穀物致賣方無法履行與穀物買家之承諾，官判frustration |
| Termination by frustration – anticipatory breach / frustration (frustration) | Avery v Bowden (1855) 5 E & B 714 | 甲協議負責碼頭裝箱，但共後通知乙無貨 (anticipatory breach)著乙不用排船，乙績安排船於碼頭等候，但其後發生戰事，官判 contract frustrated |
| Termination by frustration – lease (supervening event) (NOT frustration) | Li Ching Wing v Xuan Yi Xiong [2004] 1 HKC 353 SARS | SARS期間政府要求相關樓宇租戶搬離其租住單位10 天，當此隔離令解除後，租戶雖剩15個月租約但欲以該隔離行動作 frustration 理由，官判非 frustration |
| Termination by frustration – Delay (frustration) | Jackson v Union Marine Insurance, Co Ltd (1874) LR 10 CP 125
|
船因擱淺致延誤 8個月，官判 frustration |
| Termination by frustration – performance limited (frustration) | Pioneer Shipping Ltd v BTP Tioxide Ltd (the “Nema”) [1981] 2 All E.R. 1030 | 因罷工致合約協議之航程數量縮減一半，官判 frustration |
| Termination by frustration – self-induced frustrating event (NOT frustration) | Maritime National Fish Ltd v Ocean Trawlers Ltd [1935] AC 524 | 包船方從5隻拖船揀選其中 3 隻申請牌照，然後以另外沒有申請牌照之拖船作為因沒有牌照不能網魚為由 frustrate 與船方之包租協議，官判此乃 self induced frustrating event，故不受理為 frustration |
| Termination by frustration – no proof of self-induced frustrating event (frustration) | Joseph Constantine Steamship Line Ltd v Imperial Smelting Corp Ltd [1942] AC 154 | 船鍋爐因不明原因爆炸，包船方 claim damage，官判因包船方未能證明此乃船主之 self induced frustration，故包船方敗訴 |
| Termination by frustration – loss of profits/ increase in expenses (NOT frustration) | The Eugenia, Ocean Tramp Tankers Corporation v V/O Sovfracht [1964] 2 QB 226 | 明知經 Suez Canal 是合約指定的危險地帶，故租船方被判違約，其企圖以 Suez Canal 被封為由 frustrate 合約不成立，因改沿Cape 雖航程加長但不致為 radically different，故不受理 frustration |
| Termination by frustration – valuable benefit calculation under LARCO ss16(3) | BP Exploration Co (Libya) Ltd v Hunt (No 2) [1983] 2 AC 352 / [1982] 1 All E.R. 925 | 甲獲政府批採油特許權，與乙協議採酒，其後政府將採油國有法，官按 LRFCA S1(3) 計算 valuable benefit 價值 |
| Termination by frustration – one party has assumed risk in the contract (NOT frustration, also NOT mistake) | Amalgamated Investment & Property Co Ltd v John Walker & Sons Ltd CA [1977] | 買樓宇作重建前曾詢問樓宇是否被列歷史建築，簽約後才被列入歷史建築，官判因買方之約前查詢已構成其預了要承受有關風險，故不能受理 frustration |