Skip to content
MarkSchemeMarkScheme
Sign up — no card

9084 · 3.3.2

Breach — practice questions

Practice and worked examples for 9084 Breach. Short previews only — attempt the full question in MarkScheme against the official scheme.

Worked example 1

On 1 June, D agrees to employ C as a courier from 1 July. On 15 June, D writes that C's services are no longer required. C immediately sues for breach. Can C succeed before 1 July?

Show solution outline

Anticipatory breach: D's letter on 15 June is clear refusal to perform from 1 July — anticipatory repudiation (Hochster v De La Tour).

C's options:

  1. Accept repudiation — treat contract as ended, sue immediately for damages (lost wages from 1 July).
  2. Affirm — treat contract as continuing, wait until 1 July, then claim if D still fails.

C's choice: C sues immediately — has accepted repudiation by treating contract as terminated.

D's argument: Performance not yet due — rejected. Anticipatory breach allows immediate action.

Conclusion: C can succeed — D's anticipatory breach gives C right to terminate and claim damages without waiting for 1 July.

Worked example 2

On 1st March, AdCo enters a contract with ShopCo to display advertisements on 50 public benches for 2 years at a price of £2,000 per year, payable at the end of each year. On the same day, ShopCo's new manager emails AdCo: 'We have changed our marketing strategy. We are cancelling the contract.' AdCo has not yet printed the advertising materials. AdCo ignores the email, prints and displays the ads for the full 2 years, and then sends ShopCo an invoice for £4,000. ShopCo refuses to pay. Advise AdCo.

Show solution outline

1. Identify the Breach: ShopCo's email on 1st March is an express and unequivocal statement that they will not perform their obligations. This is an anticipatory repudiatory breach (Hochester v De La Tour).

2. Identify the Innocent Party's Options: Upon receiving the repudiation, AdCo had two options: a) Accept the repudiation: Terminate the contract and sue for damages. At this point, damages would likely be the loss of profit, as no costs had been incurred. b) Affirm the contract: Ignore the breach, keep the contract alive, and perform their own obligations.

3. Analyse AdCo's Action: AdCo chose option (b): they affirmed the contract by ignoring the cancellation and proceeding with performance.

4. Apply the Principle from White & Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor: An innocent party can affirm and claim the full contract price if two conditions are met: i. Cooperation is not needed: AdCo does not need ShopCo's help to display ads on public benches. This condition is met. ii. Legitimate interest: AdCo must have a 'legitimate interest' in performing rather than just claiming damages. Given that this is a standard advertising contract, it is likely AdCo has a legitimate interest in fulfilling its contracts and maintaining its business model. There is no evidence that performing is 'wholly unreasonable'.

5. Calculate the Claim: Since AdCo validly affirmed the contract and has now fully performed its obligations, it is not suing for damages for breach, but for the agreed contract price as a debt.

  • Contract Price: £2,000 per year
  • Contract Duration: 2 years
  • Total Claim: £2,000 * 2 = £4,000

Conclusion: AdCo is likely to be successful in its claim for the full contract price of £4,000. By affirming the contract and performing its side of the bargain, it is entitled to claim the agreed sum under the principle established in White & Carter v McGregor.

Mark a 9084 question on this topicFull lessonOpen in course studio