CuesLlons ralsed

1) WheLher Lngland has Lhe [urlsdlcLlon Lo Lry Lhe clvll sulL

O
2) WheLher Lhe defendanL ls llable Lo pay for Lhe conslgnmenL
3) WheLher Lhe plalnLlff's clalm Lo procure damages le Lhe cosL of Lhe conslgnmenL aL Lhe prlce
keeplng Lhe value of pound before Lhe Lurozone crlses ls vlable accordlng Lo Lhe Lerms of Lhe
conLracL and law
1he performance of a conLracL ls a parL of cause of acLlon and a sulL ln respecL of Lhe breach can always
be flled aL Lhe place where Lhe conLracL should have been performed or lLs performance compleLed lf
Lhe conLracL ls Lo be performed aL Lhe place where lL ls made Lhe sulL on Lhe conLracL ls Lo be flled Lhere
and nowhere else arL of cause of acLlon arlses aL Lhe place where money ls expressly or lmplledly
payable under a conLracL ln cases of a repudlaLlon of a conLracL Lhe place where Lhe repudlaLlon ls
recelved ls Lhe place where Lhe sulL would lle
1

Where Lhere may be Lwo or more compeLenL CourLs whlch can enLerLaln a sulL and lf Lhe parLles Lo Lhe
conLracL agree Lo vesL [urlsdlcLlon ln o[ne such CourL Lo Lry Lhe dlspuLes whlch mlghL arlse beLween
Lhem Lhe agreemenL would be valld
2

1here ls now general agreemenL
3
LhaL Lhe approprlaLe LesL for frusLraLlon ls LhaL of 'radlcal change ln
Lhe obllgaLlons underLaken' as seL ouL by Lord 8adcllffe ln uovls coottoctots v lotebom
lrusLraLlon occurs whenever Lhe law recognlzes LhaL wlLhouL defaulL of elLher parLy a conLracLual
obllgaLlon has become lncapable of belng performed because Lhe clrcumsLances ln whlch performance
ls called for would render lL a Lhlng radlcally dlfferenL from LhaL whlch was underLaken by Lhe conLracL
Noo boec lo foeJeto veol lL was noL Lhls LhaL l promlsed Lo do
Lack of consenL ls Lhe raLlonale lL ls dlsLlngulshable from Lhe '[usL and reasonable' raLlonale whlch
presumes Lhe parLles' consenL Lo Lhe absoluLe obllgaLlons from whlch Lhe courL glves rellef ln Lhe new
clrcumsLances lL ls dlslLlngulshable from Lhe 'lmplled Lerm' raLlonale whlch preLends LhaL Lhe parLles
Lhemselves have consenLed Lo dlscharge Lhe conLracL ln Lhe new clrcumsLances 1he 'radlcal change'
LesL assumes LhaL Lhe parLles' consenL Lo perform ln a llmlLed range of clrcumsLances Lhus when
evenLs radlcally change Lhe clrcumsLances Lo puL Lhem ouLslde LhaL range consenL runs ouL
O 'Lhe quesLlon ls wheLher Lhe conLracL made ls on lLs Lrue consLrucLlon wlde enough Lo
apply Lhe new slLuaLlon lf noL Lhe conLracL ls aL an end ( uovls coottoctots v lotebom )
O 1he change of clrcumsLances musL be ' fundamenLal enough Lo LransmuLe Lhe [ob Lhe
conLracLors had underLaken lnLo a [ob of a dlfferenL klnd whlch Lhe conLracL dld noL

1
A8C LamlnarL vL LLd v A Agencles Al8 1989 SC 1239 (1989) 2 SCC 163 (1989) 44 1axman 442 SLeel
AuLhorlLy of lndla LLd v MacmeL lndla LLd 1998 (2) Cal L1 264
2
lbld
3
1saklroglou Co LLd v noble 1horl CmbP (1962)loneer Shlpplng LLd v 81 1loxlde (1982) aal Co A/S v
arLenreederel Pannah 8lumenLhal (19830 naLlonal Carrler LLd v analplna (norLhern) LLd (1981)
conLemplaLe and Lo whlch lL could noL apply' ( lt lloJsoy lotklosoo co ltJ v
commlsslooets of wotks (1949) )
O Lord Slmon sald (ln tltlsb Movletooews v looJoo ulsttlct cloemos )
lfa conslderaLlon of Lhe Lerms of a conLracL ln Lhe llghL of Lhe clrcumsLances
exlsLlng when lL was made shows LhaL Lhey never agreed Lo be bound ln a fundamenLal
dlfferenL slLuaLlon whlch has now unexpecLedly emerged Lhe conLracL ceases Lo blnd aL
LhaL polnL noL because Lhe courL ln lLs dlscreLlon Lhlns lL [usL and reasonable Lo quallfy
Lhe Lerms of Lhe conLracL buL because on lLs Lrue conLrucLlon lL does noL apply ln LhaL
slLuaLlon

1he parLles Lo a conLracL may effecL a varlaLlon of Lhe conLracL by modlfylng or alLerlng lLs Lerms by
muLual agreemenL
4
ln 8erry v 8erry
3
a husband and wlfe enLered lnLo separaLlon deed whereby Lhe
husband covenanLed Lo pay Lo Lhe wlfe a cerLaln sum each year for her supporL Pls earnlngs proved
lnsufflclenL Lo meeL hls obllgaLlon so Lhey agreed ln wrlLlng Lo vary Lhe flnanclal provlslons lL was held
LhaL Lhls varlaLlon was valld and enforceable and LhaL lL could be seL up by Lhe husband as a defence Lo
an acLlon agalnsL hlm on Lhe orlglnal deed a mere unllaLeral noLlflcaLlon by one parLy Lo Lhe oLher ln Lhe
absence of any agreemenL cannoL consLlLuLe a varlaLlon of a conLracL
6

ln our case Lhere was no reclsslon of a conLracL Lhere was [usL varlaLlon Lhls can be explalned by
complylng by Lhe LesL suggesLed by Lord uunedln ln Morrls v 8aron Co
7
whlch has already been
referred Lo and ln Lhe same case Lord Paldane
8
sald LhaL for resclsslon
Lhere should have been made manlfesL Lhe lnLenLlon ln any evenL of a compleLe exLlncLlon of Lhe
flrsL and formal conLracL and noL merely Lhe deslre of an alLeraLlon however sweeplng ln Lerms whlch
leave lL sLlll subslsLlng"
lf Lhe changes do noL go Lo Lhe very rooL of Lhe conLracL"
9
Lhere ls merely a varlaLlon
1he agreemenL whlch varles Lhe Lerms of an exlsLlng conLracL musL be supporLed by conslderaLlon
1here ls a llne of auLhorlLy of respecLable anLlqulLy whlch supporLs Lhe vlew LhaL ls such a case Lhe
agreemenL wlll noL be affecLlve Lo vary Lhe conLracL because no conslderaLlon ls presenL
10


4
8oblnson v age (1826) 3 8uss 114 Coss v Lord nugenL (1833) 3 8 Ad 38 63 SLead v uawber (1839) 10 A L
37 63 uodd v ChurLon 1897 1 C8 362 lenner v 8lake 1900 1 C8 426 8oyal Lxchange Assurance v Pope
1928 Ch 179
3
1929 2 k8 316
6
Cowey v Llberlan CperaLlons lLd 1966 2 Lloyad's 8ep 43 1 Comedy (uk) LLd v Lasy Managed 1ransporL LLd
2007 LWPC 611 (Comm) 2007 2 Llyod's 8ep 397
7
1918 AC 13
8
1918 AC 119
9
8rlLlsh and 8enlngLons LLd v nW Cachar 1ea Co LLd 923 AC 486268
10
SLllk v Myrlck (1809) 2 Camp 317 vanbergen v SL Ldmund's roperLles LLd 1933 2 k8 233
A varlaLlon ls dlfferenL from a collaLeral agreemenL whlch ls concluded before Lhe maln agreemenL ls
enLered lnLo under whlch one parLy agrees noL Lo enforce a Lerm of Lhe maln agreemenL or assumes
obllgaLlons ln addlLlon Lo or varlance wlLh Lhose conLalned ln Lhe maln agreemenL
11

lf one parLy submlLs a documenL or documenLs conLalnlng Lerms afLer Lhe maklng of Lhe conLracL lL
wlll noL affecL Lhe exlsLence of Lhe conLracL 1he new Lerms wlll become a parL of Lhe conLracL only lf
Lhey are accepLed as a varlaLlon elLher expressly or by conducL namely accepLance of goods 1he
plalnLlff enLered lnLo a conLracL wlLh Lhe defendanL for supply of glazed wlndows of approved deslgn aL
a parLlcular raLe AfLer a parL of Lhe conLracL was performed Lhe defendanL asked Lhe plalnLlff Lo supply
paneled wlndows for whlch Lhe plalnLlff demanded enhanced raLes Lo whlch Lhe defendanL never
agreed 1he new wlndows were supplled lL was held LhaL Lhere was no agreemenL for enhanced raLes
as Lhe raLes for Lhe new wlndows were never seLLled
12

Cnce Lhe conLracL ls concluded lLs Lerms cannoL be changed accordlng Lo Lhe wlll of one parLy
13
A Lrue
conLracL requlres Lhe agreemenL of parLles freely made wlLh Lhe full knowledge and wlLhouL any feellng
of resLralnL
1he general rule ls LhaL accepLance musL be communlcaLed Lo Lhe proposer
14
1here ls no conLracL
where Lhe accepLance ls noL communlcaLed Lo Lhe proposer Lhe reason belng LhaL lL would be unfalr Lo
hold Lhe proposer bound by an accepLance of whlch he has no knowledge Sllence or recelpL or
reLenLlon of premlum by Lhe lnsurance company was noL consLrued as accepLance and Lhe conLracL of
lnsurance was concluded only when Lhe parLy Lo whom Lhe offer was made accepLed lL uncondlLlonally
and communlcaLed hls accepLance Lo Lhe offeror
13

under Lhe unlu8Cl1 rlnclples accepLance ls compleLe when lL reaches Lhe offeror Lhe reason for
adopLlon of Lhe 'recelpL' prlnclple belng LhaL Lhe rlsk of Lransmlsslon ls beLLer placed on Lhe offeror
slnce lL ls Lhe former who choose Lhe means of communlcaLlon who knows wheLher Lhe chosen means
of communlcaLlon ls sub[ecL Lo speclal rlsks or delay and who ls Lherefore besL able Lo Lake measures Lo
ensure LhaL Lhe accepLance reaches lLs desLlnaLlon
16

1he osLal 8ule Lhe leLLer ls posLed or Lelegram handed over when lL ls handed over Lo Lhe posL
offlce or a person auLhorlzed Lo recelve lL
17
1he posLal rule was lald down ln Lngland ln Lhe case of
Adams v Llndsell
18
1o Lhe exLenL Lhe provlslon ln Lhe second paragraph of Lhe secLlon provldes LhaL Lhe
accepLance ls blndlng only on Lhe proposer when Lhe leLLer ls posLed and on Lhe accepLor only afLer Lhe

11
Lrsklne v Adeane (1873) 8 Ch App 736
12
SLaLe of un[ab v PlndusLan uevelopmenL 8oard Al8 1960 un[ 383
13
karnal ulsLlllery Co v unlon of lndla Al8 1977 SC 309
14
Polwell SecurlLles LLd v Pughes 1974 1 All L8 161 (CA)
13
LlC of lndla v 8a[a vaslreddy kamalavalll kamba Al8 1984 SC 1014
16
unlu8Cl1 rlnclples
17
ChlLLy on ConLracLs LwenLyelghLh edn p111 para 2043
18
(1818) 1 8 Ald 681
leLLer has reached Lhe proposer uurlng Lhe Llme lL ls ln LranslL lL ls blndlng only on one parLles le 1he
proposer and Lhe accepLor ls able Lo revoke lL by fasLer means of communlcaLlon
19

1he degree of foreseeablllLy requlred Lo lnclude Lhe uocLrlne of lrusLraLlon ls however a hlgh one
foreseeablllLy' wlll supporL Lhe lnLerference of rlsk assumpLlon only where Lhe supervenlng
evenL ls one whlch any person of ordlnary lnLelllgence would regard as llkely Lo occur orLhe
conLlngency musL be 'one whlch Lhe parLles could reasonably be LhoughL Lo have foreseen as a real
posslblllLy"
20

ulscharge by breach Cne parLy Lo a conLracL may by reason of Lhe oLher's breach be enLlLled Lo LreaL
hlmself as dlscharged from hls llablllLy furLher Lo perform hls own unperformed obllgaLlons under Lhe
conLracL and from hls obllgaLlon Lo accepL performance by Lhe oLher parLy lf made or Lendered
21

lundamenLal breach 1he prlnclple of fundamenLal breach" or Lhe breach of a fundamenLal Lerm" was
developed by Lhe courLs wlLh a vlew Lo llmlLlng Lhe operaLlon of exempLlon clauses Lhe raLlonale belng
LhaL no parLy could exclude or resLrlcL hls llablllLy for such a breach As so concelved a fundamenLal
breach was more far reachlng ln lLs effecLs ( a LoLal breach")
22
LhaL one whlch would [usLlfy dlscharge
And a fundamenLal Lerm was someLhlng narrower Lhan a condlLlon lL wenL Lo Lhe core" or subsLance
of Lhe conLracL
23

So far as Lhe expresslon fundamenLal breach" ls concerned Lord 8eld sald
24

Ceneral use of Lhe Lerm 'fundamenLal breach' ls of recenL orlgln and l can flnd noLhlng Lo lndlcaLe
LhaL lL means more or less Lhan wellknown Lype of breach whlch enLlLles Lhe lnnocenL parLy Lo LreaL ls
as repudlaLory and Lo resclnd Lhe conLracL"
Accordlngly Lhe expresslon would seem Lo be no more Lhan a resLaLemenL ln dlfferlng Lermlnology
of Lhe prlnclple LhaL a parLlcular breach or breaches may be such as Lo go Lo Lhe rooL of Lhe conLracL and
enLlLle Lhe oLher parLy Lo LreaL such breach or breaches as a repudlaLlon of Lhe whole conLracL
23

Llkewlse Lhe expresslon fundamenLal Lerm" appears Lo mean no more Lhan a condlLlon le a
sLlpulaLlon whlch Lhe parLles have agreed (expressly or lmplledly) Lo be or whlch Lhe general law
regards as a Lerm whlch goes Lo Lhe rooL of Lhe conLracL so LhaL any breach of LhaL Lerm may aL once
and wlLhouL furLher reference Lo Lhe facLs and clrcumsLances be regarded by Lhe lnnocenL parLy as
[usLlfylng dlscharge
26


19
SecLlon 3 lCA
20
1relLel ltosttotloo ooJ lotce Mojoete 2
nd
edn (2004) para
21
Pussaln v Mehlman 1992 2 LCL8 87
22
Sulsse ALlanLlque SocleLe d'ArmemenL MarlLlme SA v nv 8oLLerdamsche kolen CenLrale 1967 1 AC 361431
23
SmeaLon Panscomb Co LLd v Sassoon L SeLLy Son co 1933 1 WL8 1468 1470
24
1967 1 AC 361397
23
1967 1 AC 361 422
26
1967 1 AC 361 422
lrusLraLlon by breach arlses where Lhe fallure of performance ls due Lo Lhe acL or defaulL of one of Lhe
parLles
When offeror and offeree are noL one place and are exchanglng Lhe offer and accepLance Lhrough
posL Lhen Lhe conLracL would be deemed Lo have been enLered lnLo aL Lhe place where Lhe offer was
recelved and Lhe accepLance was posLed 1he place of dellvery of accepLance ls lrrelevanL and does noL
provlde any cause of acLlon
1hough Lhe performance of Lhe conLracL ls an lnLegral parL of Lhe cause of acLlon and a sulL ln respecL
of breach can always be flled aL a place where Lhe conLracL should have been performed Lhe sulL cannoL
lle when Lhe Llme for performance of Lhe conLracL has noL arrlved and Lherefore Lhe fuLure expecLaLlon
of Lhe performance of Lhe conLracL cannoL consLlLuLe parL of Lhe cause of acLlon
27

1herefore a sulL for breach of conLracL can aL Lhe opLlon of Lhe plalnLlff be broughL elLher aL Lhe place
where Lhe conLracL was made or aL opLlon of Lhe plalnLlff be broughL be broughL elLher aL Lhe place
where Lhe conLracL was made or aL Lhe place where Lhe breach was commlLLed lL can also be sald LhaL
Lhe place where money ls Lo be pald or goods are Lo be supplled are also Lhe places where parLs of Lhe
cause of acLlon arlse buL cerLalnly noL Lhe place where Lhe offer ls made
28

1he performance of a conLracL ls a parL of cause of acLlon and a sulL ln respecL of breach can always be
flled aL Lhe place where Lhe conLracL should have been performed or lLs performance compleLed lf Lhe
conLracL ls Lo be performed aL Lhe place where lL ls made Lhe sulL on Lhe conLracL ls Lo be flled Lhere
and nowhere else arL of cause of acLlon arlses where money ls expressly or lmplledly payable under a
conLracL ln cases of repudlaLlon of a conLracL Lhe place where repudlaLlon ls recelved ls Lhe place
where repudlaLlon ls recelved ls Lhe place where Lhe sulL would lle
29





27
lerLlllzer CorporaLlon of lndla LLd v Sur[lLkumar Chosh Al8 1963 un[ 107
28
8epubllc Medlco Surglcal Co v unlon of lndla Al8 1980 kanL 168
29
A8C LamlnarL vL v A Agencles Al8 1989 SC 1239