Bolton v Mahadeva

Last updated

Bolton v Mahadeva
Household radiator.jpg
CourtCourt of Appeal
Decided13 April 1972
Citation[1972] EWCA Civ 5, [1972] 1 WLR 1009, [1972] 2 All ER 1322
Court membership
Judges sittingSachs LJ, Buckley LJ and Cairns LJ

Bolton v Mahadeva [1972] EWCA Civ 5 is an English contract law case concerning substantial performance of an obligation.

Contents

Facts

Mr Walter Charles Bolton installed central heating for £560 in Mr T Mahadeva’s house. It was too cold, the heat came unevenly and it all gave off fumes. Bolton refused to correct it, which would cost £174. Mahadeva refused to pay any money at all. Bolton sued.

The Brentford Deputy County Court judge, Sir Graeme Finlay, held that the contract price needed to be paid, minus a sum for the cost of putting the heating system right (a total of £446, including labour).

Judgment

Sachs LJ held that Bolton was entitled to nothing because there had been no substantial performance at all. At 1015 he said, ‘It is not merely that so very much of the work was shoddy, but it is the general ineffectiveness of it for its primary purpose that leads me to that conclusion.’

Significance

See also

Notes

    Related Research Articles

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Breach of contract</span> Type of civil wrong in contract law

    Breach of contract is a legal cause of action and a type of civil wrong, in which a binding agreement or bargained-for exchange is not honored by one or more of the parties to the contract by non-performance or interference with the other party's performance. Breach occurs when a party to a contract fails to fulfill its obligation(s), whether partially or wholly, as described in the contract, or communicates an intent to fail the obligation or otherwise appears not to be able to perform its obligation under the contract. Where there is breach of contract, the resulting damages have to be paid to the aggrieved party by the party breaching the contract.

    Consideration is an English common law concept within the law of contract, and is a necessity for simple contracts. The concept of consideration has been adopted by other common law jurisdictions, including the US.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Estoppel in English law</span>

    Estoppel in English law is a doctrine that may be used in certain situations to prevent a person from relying upon certain rights, or upon a set of facts which is different from an earlier set of facts.

    At common law, substantial performance is an alternative principle to the perfect tender rule. It allows a court to imply a term that allows a partial or substantially similar performance to stand in for the performance specified in the contract.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">English contract law</span> Law of contracts in England and Wales

    English contract law is the body of law that regulates legally binding agreements in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the Industrial Revolution, it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth, from membership in the European Union, continuing membership in Unidroit, and to a lesser extent the United States. Any agreement that is enforceable in court is a contract. A contract is a voluntary obligation, contrasting to the duty to not violate others rights in tort or unjust enrichment. English law places a high value on ensuring people have truly consented to the deals that bind them in court, so long as they comply with statutory and human rights.

    The English law of unjust enrichment is part of the English law of obligations, along with the law of contract, tort, and trusts. The law of unjust enrichment deals with circumstances in which one person is required to make restitution of a benefit acquired at the expense of another in circumstances which are unjust.

    <i>Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd</i>

    Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd[1989] EWCA Civ 5 is a leading English contract law case. It decided that in varying a contract, a promise to perform a pre-existing contractual obligation will constitute good consideration so long as a benefit is conferred upon the 'promiseor'. This was a departure from the previously established principle that promises to perform pre-existing contractual obligations could not be good consideration.

    <i>Sumpter v Hedges</i>

    Sumpter v Hedges [1898] 1 QB 673 is an English contract law case concerning substantial performance of a contract and restitution for unjust enrichment.

    <i>Blackpool & Fylde Aero Club v Blackpool BC</i>

    Blackpool & Fylde Aero Club v Blackpool Borough Council [1990] EWCA Civ 13 is a leading English contract law case on the issue of offer and acceptance in relation to an invitation to tender. In it the Court of Appeal of England and Wales decided that tenders and requests for tenders are accompanied by a collateral contract implying that the requestor will give due consideration to any timely bid.

    <i>Cutter v Powell</i> English contract law case

    Cutter v Powell (1795) 101 ER 573 is an English contract law case, concerning substantial performance of a contract.

    <i>Hoenig v Isaacs</i> English contract law case

    Hoenig v Isaacs [1952] EWCA Civ 6 is an English contract law case concerning substantial performance of an entire obligation.

    <i>Liverpool City Council v Irwin</i> English contract law case

    Liverpool City Council v Irwin [1976] UKHL 1 is a leading English contract law case concerning the basis on which courts may imply terms into contracts; in particular in relation to all types of tenancies, a term may be implied if required for a particular relationship, such as for the landlord to keep the stairwells clear in a tower block. The tenants also had a duty of reasonable care which some among them had been repeatedly breached and led to a continuing breach in matters of damage about which they complained so they were not entitled to withhold rent on the facts.

    <i>Merritt v Merritt</i> 1970 English contract law case

    Merritt v Merritt [1970] EWCA Civ 6 is an English contract law case, on the matter of creating legal relations. While under the principles laid out in Balfour v Balfour, domestic agreements between spouses are rarely legally enforceable, this principle was rebutted where two spouses who formed an agreement over their matrimonial home were not on good terms.

    Economic torts in English law refer to a species of civil wrong which protects the economic wealth that a person will gain in the ordinary course of business. Proving compensation for pure economic loss, examples of an economic tort include interference with economic or business relationships.

    Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 W.L.R. 1489; [1954] 3 All E.R. 745 is an English Court of Appeal judgment, which established the criteria for the Court to accept fresh evidence in a case on which a judgment has already been delivered.

    <i>Errington v Wood</i>

    Errington v Wood[1951] EWCA Civ 2 is an English contract law and English land law judicial decision of the Court of Appeal concerning agreement and the right to specific performance of an assurance that is relied on.

    An employment contract in English law is a specific kind of contract whereby one person performs work under the direction of another. The two main features of a contract is that work is exchanged for a wage, and that one party stands in a relationship of relative dependence, or inequality of bargaining power. On this basis, statute, and to some extent the common law, requires that compulsory rights are enforceable against the employer.

    <i>James v Greenwich LBC</i>

    James v Greenwich London Borough Council [2008] EWCA Civ 35 is a UK labour law case, concerning implied contracts for workers who work through employment agencies. Its opinion was reversed by the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 and superseded by the more recent Supreme Court decision by Lord Clarke in Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher.

    <i>Green v Lord Somerleyton</i>

    Green v Lord Somerleyton is an English land law and tort law case, concerning easements of surface water/ditch drainage and the tests for nuisance in English law. In this case there was no remedy for the flooding found to be natural and not recently exacerbated by the defendant. The court attached to the properties an old, 1921, easement of drainage passing both land holdings, in this case two common examples of lowland water engineering, dykes controlled against tides by one-way valves, mentioned in the properties' deeds and, duplicatively, established the right by prescription. The dykes lay in the claimant's own land who had failed to maintain them and failed to account for the flows caused by reduction of water extraction from the lake upstream. The claimant had failed to repair the pump and clear ditches on his own land which had been agreed between the previous owners to give channelled drainage from a lake above. It was for the claimant to recognise the danger posed by its waterline being raised in 1954 by the building up of a weir.

    <i>Miles v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council</i>

    Miles v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council[1987] UKHL 15 is a UK labour law case, concerning the theory of partial performance and strike action. Its authority has been questioned since.