''Bolton v Mahadeva''

972 Year 972 ( CMLXXII) was a leap year starting on Monday (link will display the full calendar) of the Julian calendar. Events By place Byzantine Empire * Spring – Emperor John I Tzimiskes divides the Bulgarian territories, recent ...

2 All ER 1322 is an

English contract law English contract law is the body of law that regulates legally binding agreements in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the industrial revolution, it shares a heritage with countries ...

case, concerning substantial

performance of an obligation A contract is a legally enforceable agreement between two or more parties that creates, defines, and governs mutual rights and obligations between them. A contract typically involves the transfer of goods, services, money, or a promise to tran ...

Facts

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 Brentford is a suburban town in West London, England and part of the London Borough of Hounslow. It lies at the confluence of the River Brent and the Thames, west of Charing Cross. Its economy has diverse company headquarters buildings whi ...

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'' 987AC 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'' 989ICR 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.

_Notes

{{reflist.html" ;"title="952
EWCA Civ 6
2 All ER 176

Notes

{{reflist">2

References