CORAM

---

BRETT, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

BRETT, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

TAYLOR, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

APPELLANTS

---

MICHO AND COMPANY

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

LAW OF CONTRACT-DAMAGES

 

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The respondent was employed by the appellant as contractor for a school building project. The appellant refused to make payment and repudiated the contract after the respondent had done substantial part of the building. The lower court awarded damages to the respondent without considering some payment he had received.

 

 

---

HELD

---

The court held that there was a breach of contract and the respondent was entitled to damages but that the damages awarded by the lower court was excessive.

 

 

---

ISSUES

---

Whether there was a breach of contract and whether lower court applied the right principles in awarding damages.

 

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PAY FOR CONTRACTS IN AGREED INSTALMENTS.

---

‘Non-payment of an installment would not, in the absence of express provision, in itself excuse the contractor from refusing or delaying execution of his part of the contract, but the circumstances of the non-payment may be evidence of an intention to abandon.’ Per Unsworth F.J

 

 

---

WHEN APPELLATE COURTS WILL INTERVENE ON QUESTIONS OF DAMAGES

---

‘An appellate Court does not intervene on a question of damages unless the trial Judge acted upon some wrong principle of law or the amount awarded was so extravagant or so small as to make it an entirely erroneous estimate of the damages.’ Per Unsworth F.J

 

 

---

PRINCIPLE OF QUANTUM MERUIT IN CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS

---

‘An aggrieved contractor is entitled to any balance of payment for work done and also to loss of profit on the work he has been prevented from doing.’ Per Unsworth F.J

 

 

---

CASES CITED

---

Mersey Steel and Iron Company v. Naylor, (1884) 9 A. C. 434

 

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Not Available

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT