A Quick Summary of Dakin v Lee [1916]

Dakin v Lee [1916] is a contract law case that dealt with the issue of disputed repairs to a house. Given below are the case details:

Case name & citation: H Dakin & Co Ltd v Lee [1916] 1 KB 566
Jurisdiction: Court of Appeal of England and Wales
Year of the case: 1916
Area of law: Substantial performance; discharge by performance

Facts of the case

The contract in Dakin v Lee was for the repair of a house. The work was not done according to the specifications outlined in the contract. For example, the concrete underpinning was shallower than what was contracted, the columns supporting a bay window were of incorrect dimensions, and there were issues with improper installation of joists over the bay window.

Therefore, the defendant refused to make payment to the contractor.

Issue

Was the contractor entitled to recover money for the work done?

Judgment of the Court in Dakin v Lee

The official referee who examined the case determined that the plaintiff had failed to perform the contract and hence had no right to claim payment for the work.

However, the Court of Appeal highlighted a distinction between failing to complete a contract and completing it poorly. In this case, while the work was executed poorly, it was still deemed to be performed. That is, the contract had been completed, albeit inadequately. Thus, it was held that the plaintiff could recover payment for the work done, less deductions for the fact that it did not adhere to the contract requirements. He was allowed to recover the contract price minus the cost of fixing the defects.

The doctrine of substantial performance

This case rests on the principle of substantial performance. According to it, where the obligations under a contract have been performed to a substantial degree, even if there are minor deficiencies in the work, the party concerned may still be entitled to recover payment (with deductions to cover the cost of those deficiencies). However, this won’t apply when the deviations are significant enough to undermine the very purpose of the contract. Hence, how the doctrine of substantial performance is applied can vary based on jurisdiction and the details of individual cases.

Quotes from the case (Dakin v Lee)

The statement of the judges was as under:

“Where a builder has supplied work and labour for the creation or repair of a house under a lump sum contract, but has departed from the terms of the contract, he is entitled to recover for his services, unless: (1) the work that he has done has been of no benefit to the owner; (2) the work he has done is entirely different from the work which he has contracted to do; or (3) he has abandoned the work and left it unfinished.”

Note:

You might also want to refer to another similar case named Hoenig v Isaacs [1952].

List of references:

You might also like:

More from contract law:

Ritchie v Atkinson (1808): A Quick Summary

In this blog post, we are covering a summary of the case of Ritchie v Atkinson (1808). The case relates to a contract dispute involving the transportation of a cargo consisting of hemp and iron. Given below are the case details:

Case name & citation: Ritchie v Atkinson (1808) 10 East 295

Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Year of the case: 1808

Area of law: Breach of contract; discharge by performance

Contractual agreement (Ritchie v Atkinson)

The claimant (Ritchie) had entered into a contract with the defendant (Atkinson) to transport a specific quantity of hemp and iron. The agreed-upon prices were £5 per ton for hemp and 5 shillings per ton for iron.

Non-performance

The claimant only shipped a portion of the agreed-upon quantity of cargo, failing to fully perform their obligations under the contract.

Defendant’s argument

The defendant contended that since the claimant had not fully performed the contract, no payment was due to them.

Court’s judgment in Ritchie v Atkinson

The court held that the contract could be divided into separate parts based on the agreed prices per ton for hemp and iron (i.e., because the prices were set per ton). Therefore, the claimant was entitled to payment for the quantity of cargo they did transport. However, the defendant was also entitled to claim damages for the claimant’s failure to perform in relation to the quantity of cargo that was not transported.

The reasoning behind the decision

The given case illustrates the concept of divisibility of contracts and its implications for payment or compensation.

An entire contract is one where the obligations of the parties are interdependent and cannot be divided into separate parts. In such cases, complete performance of the entire contract is usually necessary for discharge.

However, if a contract is divisible, meaning it can be separated into distinct and independent parts, then the sole performance of those parts may be sufficient to trigger payment or compensation for the completed segments. In cases where a contract can be divided, such as when a sum is agreed upon for each week or hour of work, the courts may award payment or compensation for the portions of the contract that have been successfully completed.

Final words

The given case shows that, in essence, the principle of divisibility recognizes that certain contracts can be fragmented into separate, measurable units of performance, allowing for partial compensation or payment when those segments are fulfilled. This is in contrast to entire contracts, which generally require complete performance of all obligations before the contract is considered discharged.

In Ritchie v Atkinson, despite the claimant only carrying a part of the cargo, the court allowed payment for the transported quantity while also permitting the defendant to claim damages for the quantity not shipped.

List of references:

You might also like:

More from contract law:

A Summary of Bolton v Mahadeva [1972]

The case of Bolton v Mahadeva [1972] is concerned with the concept of “substantial performance” in contract law. It says that completing the main obligations of a contract and achieving substantial performance is essential to be entitled to payment.

Case name & citation:	Bolton v Mahadeva [1972] 2 All ER 1322; [1972] 1 WLR 1009
Court and jurisdiction:	Court of Appeal (Civil Division), England and Wales
Decided on:	13 April 1972
Area of law:	Discharge by performance; substantial performance

Facts of the case (Bolton v Mahadeva)

The claimant had contracted to install a hot water and central heating system in the defendant’s residence for a price of £560. However, there were many defects in the system’s installation. There were issues like fumes affecting the air in the living room, and deficiencies in maintaining the proper level of warmth in the house (the house was on average 10% less warm than it should have been). Overall, the cost to make rectifications was £174.50.

Issue

Whether the installer should be allowed to recover payment?

Judgment of the Court in Bolton v Mahadeva

Initially, at the first instance, the judge decided that the claimant was entitled to the agreed-upon price of £560, but that £174.50 should be deducted from the contract price due to the deficiencies that needed rectification. The defendant filed an appeal.

To this, the Court of Appeal concluded that there had not been a “substantial performance” of the contract. This means that the errors and deficiencies in the installation were serious enough to undermine the purpose of the contract and preclude the claimant from collecting payment. As a result, the claimant was not entitled to recover any money, and the defendant’s appeal was successful.

Despite the fact that the entire heating system had been installed, it failed to serve its primary purpose of heating the house effectively, and hence the installer was not permitted to recover.

Governing rule behind the decision

Substantial performance refers to a circumstance in which a party to a contract has fulfilled the main obligations under the contract, even if there are some minor flaws or deficiencies in its performance. In other words, the rule of substantial performance holds that the contract may be enforced where the performance is “substantial” and the amount payable corresponds to the price of the contract minus the cost of the deficiencies.

However, in case there are significant deficiencies in the performance of the contract that prevents the very purpose of the contract from being achieved, then the party responsible might not receive payment. It may not constitute “substantial performance.”

Nevertheless, it is important to note that contract law can be complex and can vary depending on jurisdiction and specific circumstances. Thus, taking advice from a qualified legal professional is recommended if one is dealing with such issues.

List of references:

You might also like:

More from contract law: