1. Largo is a successful impresario with earnings of £1 million a year and
more. In March he contracts with Ken, a popular violinist, to appear at a
concert in June.
A month later Ken is approached by Garrick, another impresario who is
unaware of the arrangement with Largo and asked to play at a different
concert on the same night. Garrick adds that the concert is to be
recorded. Ken is attracted by this offer and at once signs an agreement to
appear at Garrick's concert. He then writes to Largo telling him that he will
not, after all, be able to appear at Largo's concert.
Largo immediately replies that it is vital that Ken does appear. He explains
that he (Largo) is about to conclude an agreement with Midbrow TV to
televise his concert and has already had to borrow £500,000 from Midas
Bank to finance the concert, the biggest he has yet planned and on which
he has staked his entire capital and reputation.
A week later Largo concludes his contract with Midbrow TV. It provides
that in the event of default by either party damages in the agreed sum of
£250,000 shall be payable. Largo sends a copy of this contract to Ken but
hears no more from him.
On the day of the concerts Ken plays for Garrick. Largo's concert is a
failure and thousands of the audience successfully demand the return of
their money. Midbrow is demanding the agreed damages. Largo is forced
to sell his business, and the only job he has been offered is as a professor
of Business Studies, which pays only £35,000 per annum.
Advise Largo.
k breaches contract with l
anticipatory breach from k – lets l know that not going to be able
to perform
causes
galoo – causation
test for causation – breach has to be effective and dominant
causation that leads to loss – auditor case
mitigation
l knew that k did want to perform – could have found
replacement for k
when person faced with breach, not be getting performance and
thereby taking loss – should take reasonable steps to minimise
loss
l could have mitigated losses with midbrow tv
more. In March he contracts with Ken, a popular violinist, to appear at a
concert in June.
A month later Ken is approached by Garrick, another impresario who is
unaware of the arrangement with Largo and asked to play at a different
concert on the same night. Garrick adds that the concert is to be
recorded. Ken is attracted by this offer and at once signs an agreement to
appear at Garrick's concert. He then writes to Largo telling him that he will
not, after all, be able to appear at Largo's concert.
Largo immediately replies that it is vital that Ken does appear. He explains
that he (Largo) is about to conclude an agreement with Midbrow TV to
televise his concert and has already had to borrow £500,000 from Midas
Bank to finance the concert, the biggest he has yet planned and on which
he has staked his entire capital and reputation.
A week later Largo concludes his contract with Midbrow TV. It provides
that in the event of default by either party damages in the agreed sum of
£250,000 shall be payable. Largo sends a copy of this contract to Ken but
hears no more from him.
On the day of the concerts Ken plays for Garrick. Largo's concert is a
failure and thousands of the audience successfully demand the return of
their money. Midbrow is demanding the agreed damages. Largo is forced
to sell his business, and the only job he has been offered is as a professor
of Business Studies, which pays only £35,000 per annum.
Advise Largo.
k breaches contract with l
anticipatory breach from k – lets l know that not going to be able
to perform
causes
galoo – causation
test for causation – breach has to be effective and dominant
causation that leads to loss – auditor case
mitigation
l knew that k did want to perform – could have found
replacement for k
when person faced with breach, not be getting performance and
thereby taking loss – should take reasonable steps to minimise
loss
l could have mitigated losses with midbrow tv
