Английская Википедия:Hoenig v Isaacs

Содержание

Текст

Текст

Текст

Текст

Текст

Текст

Текст

Текст

Текст

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

Facts

Mr Hoenig was contracted to decorate and furnish Mr Isaacs' flat for £750. When the work was done, there were problems with a bookcase and wardrobe, which would cost £55 to fix. Mr Isaacs refused to pay the £350 outstanding.

Judgment

Somervell LJ upheld the decision of an Official Referee at first instance, His Honour Sir Lionel Leach, in finding there had been substantial compliance. He noted that each case turns on the construction of the contract. Where there is substantial performance of the contract, then money must be paid. The work was done, and then there was merely a damages claim in respect of the faulty parts. He noted the case was near the border line for substantial performance and disallowed the appeal.

Denning LJ also disallowed the appeal and gave judgment as follows.

See also

• Jacob & Youngs v. Kent, 230 N.Y. 239 (1921) the possible inspiration, and judgment by Cardozo J in New York
• Cutter v Powell (1795) 101 ER 573
• Sumpter v Hedges [1898] 1 QB 673
• Bolton v Mahadeva [1972] 2 All ER 1322
• Wilusynski v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [1989] ICR 493, Nicholls LJ holding no "substantial performance" by - and no pay whatsoever for - a council worker on industrial action who did everything but answer enquiries from councillors.