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
Law Commission, No.121, ‘Pecuniary Restitution for Breach of Contract’ (1983) para. 2.32, criticised this saying a benefit conferred is one that should be paid for, unless the contract said otherwise. Brian Davenport QC dissented.
Miles v Wakefield Borough Council [1987] AC 539, Lord Bridge and Lord Brightman reincarnating the doctrine in Cutter v Powell to use against a council registrar who refused to work 3 out of 37 hours, as part of industrial action. They advised the employer that they needed to pay nothing.
Wiluszynski 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.
bolton, mahadeva, 1972, 1322, english, contract, case, concerning, substantial, performance, obligation, courtcourt, appealdecided13, april, 1972citation, 1972, 1322, 1972, 1009court, membershipjudge, sittingsachs, buckley, cairns, contents, facts, judgment, s. Bolton v Mahadeva 1972 2 All ER 1322 is an English contract law case concerning substantial performance of an obligation Bolton v MahadevaCourtCourt of AppealDecided13 April 1972Citation s 1972 2 All ER 1322 1972 1 WLR 1009Court membershipJudge s sittingSachs LJ Buckley LJ and Cairns LJ Contents 1 Facts 2 Judgment 3 Significance 4 See also 5 Notes 6 ReferencesFacts EditMr 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 EditSachs 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 EditLaw Commission No 121 Pecuniary Restitution for Breach of Contract 1983 para 2 32 criticised this saying a benefit conferred is one that should be paid for unless the contract said otherwise Brian Davenport QC dissented Miles v Wakefield Borough Council 1987 AC 539 Lord Bridge and Lord Brightman reincarnating the doctrine in Cutter v Powell to use against a council registrar who refused to work 3 out of 37 hours as part of industrial action They advised the employer that they needed to pay nothing Wiluszynski 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 See also EditJacob amp 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 Hoenig v Isaacs 1952 EWCA Civ 6 2 All ER 176Notes EditReferences Edit Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Bolton v Mahadeva amp oldid 1088507481, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
