 |
| Union Eagle Ltd v Golden Achievement Ltd | |
|---|---|
| Court | Privy Council |
| Citation(s) | [1997] UKPC 5, [1997] AC 514 |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Griffiths, Lord Mustill, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead |
| Keywords | |
| Termination, condition, deposit | |
Union Eagle Ltd v Golden Achievement Ltd [1997] UKPC 5 is an English contract law case, concerning the right to terminate performance of a contract.
Union Eagle paid 10% of the HK$4.2m price for a Hong Kong flat as a deposit. Time was said to be ‘of the essence’. Completion was meant to be 5pm 30 September 1991, and clause 12 said failure to complete meant the deposit was forfeit and the agreement rescinded. They were 10 minutes late. Union Eagle sued for specific performance, arguing relying on such a legal right was unconscionable.
Lord Hoffmann for the Privy Council advised that certainty was needed in the business world, particularly in a volatile market. Accordingly, the contract's terms should be strictly enforced, and Union Eagle lost its deposit.
The boundaries of the equitable jurisdiction to relieve against contractual penalties and forfeitures are in some places imprecise. But their Lordships do not think that it is necessary in this case to draw them more exactly because they agree with Litton V.-P. that the facts lie well beyond the reach of the doctrine. The notion that the court's jurisdiction to grant relief is "unlimited and unfettered" (per Lord Simon of Glaisdale in Shiloh Spinners Ltd v. Harding [1973] A.C. 691, 726) was rejected as a "beguiling heresy" by the House of Lords in The Scaptrade ( Scandinavian Trading Tanker Co. A.B. v. Flota Petrolera Ecuatoriana [1983] 2 A.C. 694, 700). It is worth pausing to notice why it continues to beguile and why it is a heresy. It has the obvious merit of allowing the court to impose what it considers to be a fair solution in the individual case. The principle that equity will restrain the enforcement of legal rights when it would be unconscionable to insist upon them has an attractive breadth. But the reasons why the courts have rejected such generalisations are founded not merely upon authority (see Lord Radcliffe in Campbell Discount Co. Ltd v. Bridge [1962] A.C. 600, 626) but also upon practical considerations of business. These are, in summary, that in many forms of transaction it is of great importance that if something happens for which the contract has made express provision, the parties should know with certainty that the terms of the contract will be enforced. The existence of an undefined discretion to refuse to enforce the contract on the ground that this would be "unconscionable" is sufficient to create uncertainty. Even if it is most unlikely that a discretion to grant relief will be exercised, its mere existence enables litigation to be employed as a negotiating tactic. The realities of commercial life are that this may cause injustice which cannot be fully compensated by the ultimate decision in the case.
The considerations of this nature, which led the House of Lords in The Scaptrade to reject the existence of an equitable jurisdiction to relieve against the withdrawal of a ship for late payment of hire under a charterparty, are described in a passage from the judgment of Robert Goff L.J. in the Court of Appeal [1983] Q.B. 529, 540-541 which was cited with approval by the House: see [1983] 2 A.C. 694, 703-4. Of course the same need for certainty is not present in all transactions and the difficult cases have involved attempts to define the jurisdiction in a way which will enable justice to be done in appropriate cases without destabilising normal commercial relationships...
...It remains for consideration on some future occasion as to whether the way to deal with the problems which have arisen in such cases is by relaxing the principle in Steedman v Drinkle supra, as the Australian courts have done, or by development of the law of restitution and estoppel. The present case seems to their Lordships to be one to which the full force of the general rule applies.The fact is that the purchaser was late. Any suggestion that relief can be obtained on the ground that he was only slightly late is bound to lead to arguments over how late is too late, which can be resolved only by litigation. For five years the vendor has not known whether he is entitled to resell the flat or not. It has been sterilised by a caution pending a final decision in this case. In his dissenting judgment, Godfrey J.A. said that the case "cries out for the intervention of equity". Their Lordships think that, on the contrary, it shows the need for a firm restatement of the principle that in cases of rescission of an ordinary contract of sale of land for failure to comply with an essential condition as to time, equity will not intervene.
Termination cases | |
|---|---|
Boone v Eyre (1777) 1 H Bl 273 | |
The Alaskan Trader [1984] 1 All ER 129 | |
Rice v Great Yarmouth BC (2001) 3 LGLR 4 | |
Equity is a particular body of law that was developed in the English Court of Chancery. Its general purpose is to provide a remedy for situations where the law is not flexible enough for the usual court system to deliver a fair resolution to a case. The concept of equity is deeply intertwined with its historical origins in the common law system used in England. However, equity is in some ways a separate system from common law: it has its own established rules and principles, and was historically administered by separate courts, called "courts of equity" or "courts of chancery".
Maxims of equity are legal maxims that serve as a set of general principles or rules which are said to govern the way in which equity operates. They tend to illustrate the qualities of equity, in contrast to the common law, as a more flexible, responsive approach to the needs of the individual, inclined to take into account the parties' conduct and worthiness. They were developed by the English Court of Chancery and other courts that administer equity jurisdiction, including the law of trusts. Although the most fundamental and time honored of the maxims, listed on this page, are often referred to on their own as the 'maxims of equity' or 'the equitable maxims',The first equitable maxim is 'equity delights in equality' or equity is equality Like other kinds of legal maxims or principles, they were originally, and sometimes still are, expressed in Latin.
Estoppel is a judicial device in common law legal systems whereby a court may prevent or "estop" a person from making assertions or from going back on his or her word; the person being sanctioned is "estopped". Estoppel may prevent someone from bringing a particular claim. Legal doctrines of estoppel are based in both common law and equity. It is also a concept in international law.
Specific performance is an equitable remedy in the law of contract, whereby a court issues an order requiring a party to perform a specific act, such as to complete performance of the contract. It is typically available in the sale of land law, but otherwise is not generally available if damages are an appropriate alternative. Specific performance is almost never available for contracts of personal service, although performance may also be ensured through the threat of proceedings for contempt of court.
A court of equity, also known as an equity court or chancery court, is a court authorized to apply principles of equity rather than principles of law to cases brought before it. These courts originated from petitions to the Lord Chancellor of England and primarily heard claims for relief other than damages, such as specific performance and extraordinary writs. Over time, most equity courts merged with courts of law, and the adoption of various Acts granted courts combined jurisdiction to administer common law and equity concurrently. Courts of equity are now recognized for complementing the common law by addressing its shortcomings and promoting justice.
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.
Unconscionability is a doctrine in contract law that describes terms that are so extremely unjust, or overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of the party who has the superior bargaining power, that they are contrary to good conscience. Typically, an unconscionable contract is held to be unenforceable because no reasonable or informed person would otherwise agree to it. The perpetrator of the conduct is not allowed to benefit, because the consideration offered is lacking, or is so obviously inadequate, that to enforce the contract would be unfair to the party seeking to escape the contract.
Joint wills and mutual wills are closely related terms used in the law of wills to describe two types of testamentary writing that may be executed by a married couple to ensure that their property is disposed of identically. Neither should be confused with mirror wills which means two separate, identical wills, which may or may not also be mutual wills.
Equitable remedies are judicial remedies developed by courts of equity from about the time of Henry VIII to provide more flexible responses to changing social conditions than was possible in precedent-based common law.
The law of contract in Australia is similar to other Anglo-American common law jurisdictions.
O'Neill v Phillips[1999] UKHL 24 is a UK company law case on an action for unfair prejudice under s.459 Companies Act 1985. It is the only case thus far in the House of Lords on the provision and it deals with the concept of members of a business having their "legitimate expectations" disappointed.
Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher, is a leading case in Australian contract law. The Australian High Court decided that estoppel, in certain circumstances, could be a cause of action.
A contract is an agreement that specifies certain legally enforceable rights and obligations pertaining to two or more mutually agreeing parties. A contract typically involves the transfer of goods, services, money, or a promise to transfer any of those at a future date. In the event of a breach of contract, the injured party may seek judicial remedies such as damages or rescission. A binding agreement between actors in international law is known as a treaty.
Unconscionability in English law is a field of contract law and the law of trusts, which precludes the enforcement of voluntary obligations unfairly exploiting the unequal power of the consenting parties. "Inequality of bargaining power" is another term used to express essentially the same idea for the same area of law, which can in turn be further broken down into cases on duress, undue influence and exploitation of weakness. In these cases, where someone's consent to a bargain was only procured through duress, out of undue influence or under severe external pressure that another person exploited, courts have felt it was unconscionable to enforce agreements. Any transfers of goods or money may be claimed back in restitution on the basis of unjust enrichment subject to certain defences.
Jennings v Rice is an English land law case concerning proprietary estoppel.
Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC[1996] UKHL 12, [1996] AC 669 is a leading English trusts law case concerning the circumstances under which a resulting trust arises. It held that such a trust must be intended, or must be able to be presumed to have been intended. In the view of the majority of the House of Lords, presumed intention to reflect what is conscionable underlies all resulting and constructive trusts.
Cukurova Finance International Ltd & Anor v Alfa Telecom Turkey Ltd[2009] UKPC 19, P.C., [2012] UKPC 20, [2013] UKPC 2, [2013] UKPC 20, [2013] UKPC 25 and [2014] UKPC 15 were a series of judicial decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, one of which is a leading case on the remedy of appropriation for security interests that was introduced into United Kingdom law under the Financial Collateral Arrangements (No.2) Regulations 2003, which implemented the Financial Collateral Arrangements Directive. Together with its related appeals on preliminary and subsequent issues, it has defined the scope of the remedy, as well as what equitable relief may be available.
Penalties in English law are contractual terms which are not enforceable in the courts because of their penal character. Since at least 1720 it has been accepted as a matter of English contract law that if a provision in a contract constitutes a penalty, then that provision is unenforceable by the parties. However, the test for what constitutes a penalty has evolved over time. The Supreme Court most recently restated the law in relation to contractual penalties in the co-joined appeals of Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi, and ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.
Stichting Shell Pensioenfonds v Krys[2014] UKPC 41 was a decision of the Privy Council on appeal from the British Virgin Islands relating to an anti-suit injunction in connection with an insolvent liquidation being conducted by the British Virgin Islands courts.
Pakistan International Airlines Corp v Times Travel (UK) Ltd [2021] UKSC 40 is an English contract law case, concerning economic duress.
