MOD000009 Contract Law
Written assignments must not exceed the specified maximum number of words. When a written assignment is marked, the excessive use of words beyond the word limit is reflected in the academic judgement of the piece of work which results in a lower mark being awarded for the piece of work.
Additional Submission Details:
· Students should submit a speech ready to be read out before court (e.g. Herne Bay Steamboat Co and Hutton, reported in the second edition of the King’s Bench reports at page xyz).
· Students are asked to submit also a table of cases or cited literature.
· Students are asked to refrain from footnotes or linguistic contractions.
· Students are asked to summarise the facts of the moot case (one paragraph only) and should offer and, very concisely, deliver facts of each cited case to the court.
Clare Matthews is the owner of thirty allotment plots, which she lets out to allotment holders on yearly tenancies, which commence on the 30th September. Ten of the allotment plots have become vacant this year, and Clare Matthews has decided to hire a cultivator, a small gardening machine for tilling
the soil, to use on these plots. She intends to use the cultivator to put them into a suitable condition to let to new allotment holders. Clare agreed to hire a top of the range cultivator, for a week, from Tim Bryant, for a fee of £2000. Clare paid the £500 deposit specified in the hire contract, with the balance to be paid within seven days of the completion of the contract. Clare used the cultivator for two days and managed to cultivate five allotments. Unfortunately, heavy rain made it impossible to use the cultivator on the remaining allotment plots, for the remaining five days of the hire period. Clare, who has some knowledge of the law, refused to pay the balance of the hire charge, and claimed that the contract was frustrated.
Both parties agreed prior to the trial that if the contract was not frustrated damages would be award against Clare Matthews.
The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the trial judge and found:
The contract was not frustrated, applying the ‘radically different test’, set out in Davis
Contractors Ltd v Fareham UDC  AC 696 and awarded damages to Bryant.
Clare Matthews now appeals to the Supreme Court on the following ground:
The contract was frustrated and automatically brought to an end.