Transcript for:
Understanding Discharge of Contracts

good evening to all of you and uh welcome back to our classroom uh law of contracts after the uh the strike by our leches as you are away we will be writing our exams uh and then and food this from now so what we intend to do is to quickly uh mop up what we are supposed to have finished doing but for the unfortunate uh intervention by the strike yes so uh we would like to discuss discharge of contracts of course with uh by this side of contract we are referring to the virus waste or means in which the parties are freed from the mutual rights and obligations uh under the contract and the parties are discharged or free from their contractual uh obligations in four main ways by performance that is where the obligations have been performed as me then they are released from federal uh obligation or by agreement frustration and breach so we would like to tonight talk about this by performance as far as frustration is concerned i discuss it virtually during the strike and i send to the recording of that and it's still available so you are able to play that and we will not discuss it substantively here again except that when we finish all the aspects of this ad i will conduct a one generation tutorial here online and some of the questions will be cross-cutting so that it will provide the opportunity for us to still discuss maybe some aspect of frustration so let's keep that in mind [Music] so let's start by performance uh what uh do we mean by that we know that uh when a contract is made it creates obligations or duties for the parties both sides they all have one duty or the other to perform now should they perform those duties then that is a good thing because uh as we know uh practicing savannah isn't its agreements are meant to be binding and are meant to be obeyed and kept and you have sanitary funds that so that is fine but reality in the real world is that it's not all the time that you will get the parties performing their obligations under the contracts you may get a situation where one side one party has performance obligation and the other side has not performed his obligation now the side or the party who has performed his side of the contract uh could be said to have been discharged by performance that is to say that he or she is released from federal performance now if one party that is a part who has performed has actually done what is the spread of him under the contract that we say that he is discharged so he alone is discharged meaning that he doesn't have any obligation under that contract he's done what is required of him to his research and by being disturbed from uh further performance he acquires the legal rights that is the right of action against the other certainly the other party uh would not have uh carried out inside so the other part will be in a bridge right so we see that there's a very good collaboration between performance and a bridge where you have to buy this with the contract and one party performs so that he's discharged the other party does not perform so that he is in bridge and then the one who performed and then for that matter discharge acquires the legal right to be able to sue the one who is in bridge if that is how performance uh discharges a person we would like to know what really amount to performance for purposes of saying that the party is desired from the contract the general rule at common law is that performance of the contract must be precise and exact so that is what you call the precision rule right the precision rule or the exactitude principle precision rule the exactly two principles to say that you must carry out the contract strictly according to what was agreed uh no more uh no less maybe on this uh those of you who have like appetite for literature for the literary works uh you remember we learned shakespeare's work right especially the merchant of venice if you remember the merchant of venice i like law and literature occasionally i indulge myself in that so if you look at the merchant of venice for example those of you who know like their story uh the right sherlock and antonio and all that where does the contract between the shallow like the jew and antonio and the contract was that if antonio defaulted in repaying the loan fuji has taken to enable his friend embarcemeo to to marry what is happening is that least a minute my yeah so uh coming back to the uh sherlock and the basseno uh story that you know the if you defaulted in pain then a panel flesh was to be taken from the body of antonio so that was the agreement now for of course uh antonio i was not able to pay has agreed so he was in bridge and had actually sherlock had actually uh performed so sherlock uh was not enriched and he wanted to exact uh the punishment against antonio and of course you see how the judge a porsche who had disguised himself as a judge for example insisted that what was entitled to was just the the the the pound of flesh excluding blood and the mata if you look at the contract blood was not meant to have followed the the panel first flesh and so if uh until you and my sherlock was going to take his final flesh he had to make sure that he did not actually allow any blood to drop so that was like the precision rule right uh the precision rule that you're entitled to have a pan of flesh another pan of flesh and a drop of blood but not until you have done that uh you cannot say that you've actually carried out what the consensus you should do that was just by the way now coming back to our mainstream discussion just to retreat that the the general position of the law is that you cannot be said to have been discharged by performance unless and until you have carried out the contract precisely and exactly as was made that is to say that you must have completely and precisely perform the exact thing that you agreed to do under the contract no more no less so just like the merchant of venice example uh that uh you have to actually uh yeah some people say that my network is breaking you know those things i cannot do anything about that so just manage but it's been recorded okay now the precision rule or the executive rule uh finds expression in a very well known case a case of a kata and powell qatar and powell a 19th century uh case uh involved an agreement between the plaintiff carter to serve on the ship which was sailing from jamaica to liverpool another agreement he was entitled to be paid at teter guineas on arrival at liverpool so the ship sailed on 2nd august and arrived in liverpool on 9th october but carter died at sea on 20th september now the widow of the cellar wanted to claim wages which the husband had end before his untimely demise but the court held that his widow could not recover anything for the work he had done before he died because in the view of the court considering the contract cartel was obliged to complete the voyage to complete the whole journey before he was entitled to any uh payments so in so long as he had not done that then he was not entitled to any uh payment so to speak so the case is the carter and and and power and of course that related to the precision rule as seen in the context of a service right the wakata in power was really about a service but the same principle is also reflected in relation to uh august so it will take the case of raymond and go again and land against the london coal you notice that uh the buyer in that case had made an order for consignment of a 10 foot and the 10 fruits were supposed to have been packaged in a certain way that is uh do i suppose we pack in cases of 30 things it will put 30 things in the box so to speak and the correct amount was delivered that is the full contractual amount of quantity was delivered but it was discovered that half had been packed in a manner controlled to the agreed uh way of packing that thirty tens should be in a box and half were actually seen to be like 24 things in a case or a box but if you aggregate them if you put everything together you still get the the twitter amount which have been agreed upon nevertheless the court held that uh the buyer was entitled to reject the whole consignment now when we come to contract for sale of bus you know when goods are delivered and for example they don't meet the terms of the contract of sale the buyer has the right to uh to reject right refuse to accept delivery so the cost said that in this particular case the buyer was entitled to reject the whole consignment because it did not meet precisely or exactly what had been agreed upon what had been agreed upon was that you should put 30 things in a box and not any other way right good uh i i hope you you you definitely see this precision roof to be quite harsh or do you think that is is reasonable and if you even put your mind back to the analogy i drew from uh lance's field work of a mission to venice the and the the final flesh do you think that the precision rule of performance is a very good principle is it fair if you want to speak just put up your hand okay so ban no okay so um please can you hear me yes please all right so um i think that it's actually fair because i'm in a contract and then as a result of the terms of the contract you do agree on the various undertakings as the worst obligations that each and every party to the contract must be a form particular thing and then you are um to discharge that duty you have to do it in a sense that it's accurate or precised so anything which is down contrary to that would amount to a bridge because we know that a breach of contract um arises when a party performs is part of a contract um but does not perform it as it was um contemplated between or as it has been stipulated by the terms of the contract also so i think it's actually fair yeah in that sense all right okay thank you uh zipporah uh let's take some in so we're wating somewhere okay so i also think these terms are very harsh because considering you know many times in the sense of becoming a warranty this though there is a bit of contract but it doesn't go deep like it doesn't go into the root of the contract itself so i think it should be considered as a warranty for the for the party in default to pay um just damages to the innocent party than reputating the contract itself all right okay yeah okay all right uh i get uh what uh you mean okay so let's take my visuku yeah maybe splish i agree with what mrs was saying it is harsh sometimes even though the party performed it defaultively the battle was strong in the performance or the party did not complete the performance but then the other party that's the innocence but it will benefit from the defaulting a performance so it's unfair for the innocent person not to pay anything or to be totally discharged from that under the contract okay thank you very much i mean uh yes the viewpoint that you have expressed okay let's take an either day anita day halluci yes so i actually think it depends because if the champs for example maybe the innocence party performed his side of the contract and the other party took advantage of the innocence party performing his side and decided not to um perform his side of the contract even though the innocence pass he had performed his side it would be unfair to the innocence party if he is not allowed to repredate the contract but in the instance where maybe due to some unforeseen circumstances the defaulting party could didn't perform the contract precisely as it had been stipulated it would be actually unfair to that side because it would be unfair to the 14 party because it wasn't his intention not to perform the contract the way he did it or something like that all right okay all right thank you so let thank you i need to so let's take some seconds oh sorry we left we lost something something put up your hand again so that i will release the attendance and mistake from my end okay thank you uh something please submit yourself good yeah something let's hear you yeah um i also believe that um it depends on the fact you can it can be harsh and it also can um be a form of justice depend on the first [Music] to pluck it because in the um game you just put you just refresh i think it was harsh because you can never have a flesh without blood so i think it was harsh but in the other case where the man died along the voyage he had carried out the portion of the contract so many approaches on the contract for death and there is a natural economy which no one has control over so the person the wages equivalent whatever we're gonna have before the person has fight that is from the second to the 20th when when he has fights he should have been paid out with this and [Music] okay all right thank you very all much thank you very much samson yeah i'm very happy that uh some of you in your contribution you were able to draw upon your knowledge of terms of contracts and i remember uh by hearing one of you saying that if the particular team which has been breached in terms of their performance not being exactly or precisely then if it's for example is a warranty then he thinks that where the the innocent party to come under the precision rule and sort of reject whatever has been uh you know delivered as we saw in the rainbow and cool and london and all that that would be very harsh but he was of the view that if what the you know the defaulting party uh failed to uh meet in terms of not carrying out precisely and exactly as i if it is in relation to a condition then there's no problem then he thinks that the precision rule is fair yeah so i mean that's an interesting submission yeah good so uh in the light of the harshness uh which divorcing we will like to look at another uh illustration and then we would then uh try and see how the common law has actually repositioned itself in order to mitigate the harshness associated with uh strict adherence to the precision rule of performance now in the case of bolton and uh mahadeva a very uh interesting case uh bolton and mahadeva where uh bolton you know had installed the heating system in mahadeva's house for an agreed price of 560 pounds the work was carried out effectively and it was estimated that it would cost 179 pounds to put matters right it was held that since bolton had not performed his side of the contract he could recover nothing for the work that he had done and of course and this will also underscore the harshness which you have seen uh as far as the the the rule is concerned and i'd like you to read the opinion of lord that's scans right a lord that says scans and if you read the opinion of lord that's the scans you'll notice that he goes out of his way to reveal most of the other case law which are relevant to this area including the case of honing and isaac which we are going to be citing very soon right so lord that's the scans in the bolton mahadeva uh in portion of his judgment which i could cease as this quote the action was funded on the lam sam contracts together with certain items of extras the defense was that the plaintiff had wholly failed to perform the main contracts and the defense set out extensive particulars of defects in the work it was admitted that a small sum was due for extras consisting of the preparation of a bathroom suit the defendant contended that the consideration for the main contract had wholly failed alternatively he claimed to set off as some contact leaving respect to making good effects by his reply the defender the plaintiff considered that there were small there were some small defense for which the defendant was entitled to a set of but otherwise he denied all the defendants allegations then his lawship continued to review the principle the rule which was laid down many years ago in qatar and in relation to lamb's some contracts was that unless the contracting party had performed the whole of his contract he was not entitled to recover anything that strong rule must now be read in the light of certain more recent cases to which i shall briefly refer that inside the case of the first of those cases and lee a decision of god for being with it was held that where the amount of work which had not been carried out and the alarm sum contract was a very minor inflation to the contract as a whole the contractor was entitled to repay the lump sum subject to such deduction as might be proper in respect of the uncompleted work it is necessary to observe that the head note of dicken and lee was based not on the judgment the court appealed but on the judgments that have been delivered in divisional court now let me pass this comment look at what a lord that scans has observed right regarding a reported case the case of dickens and lee and he's saying that the law reporters uh instead of reporting the decision from the court of appeal radar reported the decision from the court below from which the appeal had and that is why we advise you not to settle for head note in law report okay the the law reporters can also make mistake and they do make mistakes so sometimes read the full judgment for yourself so that'll get the correct version of the uh judgment now um ultimately if you read our lord justice uh cain's the point at which uh he he comes to is that uh it will depend uh very much on uh the nature of the of the defects that if the defects is quite uh uh severe then the defaulting parties should not be entitled to anything but uh as you have rightly uh acknowledged in your contributions that the precision rule of performance is quite harsh and for that matter uh some exceptions have been developed in order to circumvent uh strict application of the precision rule so what are these exceptions we will be looking at divisible or severable contracts because so far uh most of the contracts that we're talking about are lump sum right looking at if you have like a divisible contract as whether the precision rule is still applicable then we also look at the situation of where only there's a partial performance of performance and the innocent party seems to have accepted that or the situation where the other party has prevented you from performing your obligation and also the situation of you having performed substantially you perform almost everything required of you less some minor defects and all that we'll be looking at uh these exceptions so uh divisible contract uh we have what they called entire contracts right that is indivisible contract as opposed to divisible contract uh when we say uh entire contracts uh that is to say that the obligations of the parties in the contract are interdependent are concurrent uh i mean interrelated they are very much dependent upon each other such that neither party is entitled to demand performance from the other either in whole or in part until he himself has completely fulfilled or is ready and willing to fulfill his own obligation in some contract the obligation involves as such that one obligation cannot be considered independent of the other so where that is the case then the contract is an entire contract is indivisible and for that matter a party is not entitled to payment until he has completely reformed his part of the contract as it were however where a contract may be split may be divided right or divisible or split into several parts or stages so that various parts or various aspects of obligation can stand on their own independent of the other then where you have performed those obligations which can stand independently uh from the rest of the contracts you should be entitled to payments for the paths or the stages which you have completed so that way we have an exception to the precision rule or the exact rule of performance which requires that you must carry out exactly what the contract stipulated now whether a contract can be severable that is divisible or not depends very much on the intention of the parties so in absence of evidence as to intention the courts are reluctant to construe the contracts who has required complete performance before any payment becomes a deal so if you look at the case of robots against havelocks for example the defendant ship was sailing from cardiff to alessandra the cargo of iron when it was damaged and forced to uh duck at milford heaven to allow necessary press uh to be done the plaintiff uh a shipwright was employed and undertook to put the ship in into total repair before the work was completed the plaintiff asked for payment in respect of that part which he had carried out but when payment was refused he soon to recover the amount to which he maintained he was entitled at that stage the court held that the plaintiff would succeed as there was no agreement to the effect that the plaintiff will make no demand for payment until all the reports were completed so you see that when it comes to interpretation of contracts there's a presumption right the courts uh you know tends to look at the obligations as being uh severable or has been divisible a where the intention of the parties are so obvious that they intended the obligation to be interdependent and not survivable otherwise the courts will not hesitate to recognize a divisible or severable uh contract where the circumstances clearly suggest that and as we have said if the obligations are severable then if you perform parts or if you're home like up to a certain stage that should entitle you to payment another exception to the strict rule of performance is acceptance of persia or power performance and it simply comes with this that if one party to a contract uh partially performs obligation and the other party accepts the benefits of the partial performance then he is obliged to pay a reasonable price for it what that means is that the one who ascended the partial performance has not really done what is required but since you have accepted it right you the recipient of the that share performance you have accepted it instead of exercising your right to reject it or something like that then the law will not allow you to keep the benefit of it and refuse to make payment for that which you have enjoyed however if the circumstances are such that the party receiving the benefit of partial performance does not have the option of whether or not to reject the partial performance then he's not obliged to pay for it what this means is that before the acceptance of partial performance or power performance exception will be applicable the circumstances must be said that the party who anita you want to say something anita there okay all right yeah so uh where i mean before the acceptance of past year uh performance will work as an exception to the precision rule the circumstance should be such that the person accepting the partial performance must have had an option must have had alternative as whether he will reject it or you accept it but if the circumstances were said that he did not have any alternative and he had to necessarily accept it then the fact that he has accepted the partial performance will not automatically entitle the person who attended or who made the partial performance uh to get payment for it so let's keep that in mind in the case is there something against hedges some targeting suggests uh the plaintiff who was a builder contracted to build two houses and stables two houses and the instables upon the defendant's land for a sum of 565 [Music] pounds the plaintiff did part of the work the value of what he did came to [Music] 333 pounds and then he abandoned the contracts and the plaintiff uh i mean the defendant had to uh you know complete the buildings and by himself and the plaintiff claimed payment in respect of that part of the work which he had carried out so what the defendant did was clearly partial performance of performance but would defendant be i mean the the plaintiff what that who has done their passion performance would he be entitled to uh payment for what he had done so if we if we look at the judgment especially the opinion of lord justice mix right if you look at something hedges lord that's a smith spoke and part of his opinion he spoke as follows quote and when the buildings were still in an unfinished state the plaintiff informed the defendant that he had no money and was not going on with the work anymore the leonard dad has found as a fact that he abandoned the contract under such circumstances what is a building owner to do he cannot keep the buildings on his land in an unfinished state forever the law is that where there is a contract to do work for alarm sample until the work is completed the price of it cannot be recovered therefore the plaintiff could not recover on the original contracts it is suggested however that the plaintiff was entitled to recover for the work he did on a quantum merit but in order that that may be so there must be evidence of a fresh contract to pay for the work already done then he cited like the authorities and then he move on and then you should also look at the decision of uh collins our lord justice collins of course the well-known uh cheating right you know titan contracts who was a quarter of pageant at the time also sat on this particular case as something hedges but a treaty concurred in the judgment and let's listen to questions of the decision of uh lord justice collins in the same as sometimes hedges the law justice calling speaking on quote i think the case is really concluded by the finding of the language the effect that the plaintiff had abandoned the contract if the plaintiff had merely broken his contract in some way so as not to give the defendant the right to treat him as having abandoned the contract and the defendant had then proceeded to finish the work himself the plaintiff might perhaps have been entitled to sue on quantum merit on the ground that the defendant had taken the benefits of the work the defendant had taken the benefits of the work done but that is not the present case there are cases in which though the plaintiff has abandoned performance of a contract it is possible for him to raise the influence of a new contract to pay for the work done on quantum merit and the defendants have been taking the benefit of that way but in order that that may be done the circumstances must be such as to give an option and that's why i wanted to pay attention lord that is calling speaking in something hedges but in order that that may be done the circumstances might be such as to give an option to the defendant to take or not to take the benefit of the work done it is only where the circumstances are such as to give that option that there is any evidence on which to ground the influence of a new contract where as in the case of red down on land the circumstances are such as to give the defender no option whether he will take the netflix of the work or not then one must look to other facts than the mere taking the benefit of the work in order to grant the influence of new contracts in this case i see no other facts okay so i mean just uh uh lord uh just is telling us about what we've been hammering that before the exception can apply it must be such that the other party that is the innocent party the defendant had an option and having an option whether to accept or reject the partial performance chose to accept the partial performance and then once you've done that then if you've taken like the benefit of it you must actually uh pay for that but in the sumter and high us case if you look at it the court's conclusion ultimately was that the plaintiff could not recover their money because though the defendant accepted the plaintiff's part performance the defendant had no option to reject and it was impossible to reject a half built house since the status quo cannot be restored now if some you have someone to build a house is only done part of it and the loss is that you can reject faster performance whether you don't have to pay anything at all and so on now if you reject it the uncompleted house is still on your land isn't it does it mean you're going to pull it down and then start building from scratch and all that so that is the the wisdom in the sometime here this case another exception to the precision raw performances where there has been uh what we call like the prevention of performance if you prevented as someone who's supposed to perform obligation under the contact from performing what is required of him or her under the contract then he can choose to bring an action for damages for breach of contract against you or he can bring a quantum merit action to claim for the work done so contour meru simply means that uh as much as your performance is wet right or in construction contract because some you call that the pro rata right pro writer so in the interesting case of a plan against a coven for example the plaintiff agreed uh to uh write a book on custom like actually like a prodigal publication and the name of it from the report was to be the juvenile library so uh the contract uh was that the book which was being written will be serialized right in the form of like the project as i've indicated and the plaintiff was we paid 100 pounds on completion of the book now after the plaintiff had done some research and written some of the book but before he had completed it the defendant stopped publishing the eradica so you said they are going to do series right they're going to do serious maybe it's just like setting up like a magazine or anything like that and you've asked someone to be writing maybe something about uh fashion of modding youth the person is going to be doing like the new series of writing and that and you say that you are no longer going to do the magazine so if you are not going to do the magazine what it means is that the drafts that he has done cannot be published cannot be serialized as i didn't agree so the court held that the plaintiff had been wrongfully prevented from performing the contract for him to be able to write the contribution for the magazine the magazine must be running but here is the case you have abandoned the publication of the magazine asset where so you have prevented him from performing his obligation and for that matter the court was the view that uh for the work that he had done so far before uh the other party prevented him from performing his obligation he was entitled to a payment on basis of counter merit that is he was entitled to payment for whatever what he had performed was actually works another exception to the precision rule is what you call the doctrine of substantial performance and the doctor of substantial performance simply means that where a party has substantially that is i know nearly completely right perform his obligations under the contract reform his obligations under the contract is entitled to claim the contract price less a reduction for defense or deficiencies now this type of reception is applicable where the defects are complaining about is in relation to quality of performance so let's suppose that as we saw in the case of uh owning an ice is very interesting is that defendant employed the plaintiff to decorate and furnish its flats and at the total price of 750 pounds the construction was done for definition was on all right but having uh completed defects were seen in the furniture and if you want that to correct those defects you need them to hire people and spend about 56 pounds right so the defendants argued that the plaintiff was entitled to a reasonable remuneration and not the contract price but the court disagreed with the argument of the defendant and maintained and inhale that having regard to the circumstances of this case it's quite clear that the plaintiff had carried vertically that virtually everything required of him or her under the contract and for that matter if there were some minor defects that should not deprive him of the agreed contractual price but in order to make good the minor defects we needed to take the amount of money needed to correct the minority defect from the agreed contractual price so since 56 pounds was what was required to rectify the defects that was going to be deducted from the contractual price of 700.50 pounds so that is a substantial performance doctrine as an exception to the precision rule but if you contrast honing and isaac with the bolting and mahadeva which we have seen already uh bando is me me in this class mimi are you here let me if you're here show off your hand yeah i'll allow bando hello please doctor yes please can you also like does the case of brazilian electronics also apply here okay right yeah electronics um i wouldn't i like the analogy that you are trying to do uh residual electronics uh it was not easy residual electronics the reason why i i get the connection but i wouldn't uh treat it as being on the same pedestal with the uh what do you call like the case of like the honin and isaac that we have uh discussed because uh resurrect electronics we noticed that the swimming pool which had been constructed right did not meet exactly the agreed uh specification but it was not the case that you needed to correct no you needed to correct defects in the quality of performance but the court was prepared to award compensation in relation to in relation to in relation to the the fact that the man wanted to call a swimming pool of a certain specification and not having obtained that he has lost a certain joy the amenities certain intrinsic pleasure yes i contracted to have a swimming pool of this particular specification made not getting exactly that i feel a sense of you know not being focused because that's not what i i begging for so the court awarded no damages for loss of amenity but that was not really uh to make up for defects in the quality i think that is a distinction that can be drawn i don't know if a vandal will have alternative submission well i thought it would apply because um i think that and the plaintiff wanted the pool to be seven feet and then the contractor made it just his feet but because the difference is it's a bit chewy also and the course also didn't allow him to recover all the damages of rebuilding the pool so i thought maybe they and i think i also remember one of the judges also mentioning substantial performance but then i'm not sure i think so that's how i actually fit the price okay all right uh good but uh go back and re uh i mean it's it's it's it it's relevant it's relevant as i said the fact that it's not on all fours doesn't mean that there is relevant as we rightly say we look at the speeches yes references were made that yes okay very well and let's look at the last uh exception [Music] uh that is a time of performance so at common law uh where a person who failed to perform this obligation under the contract within a given time like you are supposed to you know carry out your obligation within a particular period of time if you don't do that yes you are in a bridge of contract that if you don't meet the time of performance the deadline for uh performance but if we look at equity as we know from muslims of equity that uh that time is only of the essence if the party's espresso state or if a party will be guilty of undue delay is notified by the other party that unless you perform his obligation within a reasonable time the contract will be regarded as breach or broken so in terms of time with respect to performance breach and all that it will depend very much on what the parties say agreed upon if from the circumstances of the contract time was really crucial then certainly if you are not able to meet the the agreed time to be said to be uh in a bridge uh of a contract asset way and that cannot be an exception to the uh the the the precision rule uh so let's uh take uh notes of that now there's the uh a case uh which i would like you to read very interesting it was respect to uh time uh i think the my sharing is um is behaving so uh the case of uh charles richards limited against the opening it has richard let me see if i'm able to get it shown for you good yeah so it has richards limited against open hand uh as early as 1947 the defendants ordered from the plaintiffs uh rose royce tries and then in july the plaintiffs agreed that a body should be billed for it within six or at most seven months so dances or at most seven months the body was not completed several months later but the defendant agreed with another three months and at the end of this extended period the body was still not built the defendants then give a final notice that if the work were not finished within a federal period of four weeks he will cancel the order the body was not finished within this period and then the defendant canceled the order and then the complete that body was delivered or attended to the defendant three months later but he refused to accept it and eventually when the mother came before the court the court was a review that a defendant could not have refused delivery merely because the original date had not been met but he could do so upon giving the plaintiff a reasonable time to deliver and here the notice uh did given uh a reasonable time so the defendant was justified in refusing uh delivery yeah so uh i think these are the few points that we need to remember as far as this type by performance is concerned so as i told you we've already done this up by frustration so go back and play back uh your lecture on that tomorrow we'll discuss we've also discussed this stuff by bridge when we're discussing remedies for breach of contact but we touch on it briefly uh in addition to this stuff by agreement and effectively that should mark the end of discussion of the topics and then i'll give you a couple of questions and we'll discuss together on this platform all right so if there are any questions i'll just take the i have three more minutes then i need to rush to the garage to pick my car before they will close okay so thank you very much and then we will have the class tomorrow