Specific performance is unlikely to be granted because it is a contract of

Specific performance is unlikely to be granted

This preview shows page 4 - 6 out of 7 pages.

specific performance.Specific performance is unlikely to be granted because it is a contract of personalservices, and it requires constant supervision. Injunction is not considered becausethere was no negative covenant (ROT clause).Claim liquidated damages assuming there was a liquidated damages clause.Unliquidated damages unlikely to exceed what he paid to Able because it maycost less to hire a new contractor to complete the renovations since hacking hasalready been completed.(e)Can Able Pte Ltd counter-sue for the cost of hacking?Depends on whether the contract was divisible. If so, Able may be able to claimfor the cost of hacking as they performed a stage of the contract. (not included insyllabus)No because the contract must be completed for payment to be made. 4. Pure Bliss Pte Ltd is a big company which provides various travel related services, including overseas tour packages which are designed in-house. Wai Noh Luc, a customer, had booked a special in-house tour for 2 to Bali. Wai Noh Luc had booked the tour as he wanted to go to Bali for his honeymoon. However, subsequently Wai Noh Luc cancelled the booking as he broke up with his fiancée. Wai Noh Luc had paid the sum in full as per the contract. However, the contract also provides that, if a cancellation is received 1 month before departure, 20% of the sum would be forfeited, if a cancellation is received 2 weeks before departure, 50% of the sum would be forfeited, if a cancellation is received 1 week before departure, 75% of the sum would be forfeited and if a cancellation is received at any time less than a week before departure, 100% of the sum would be forfeited. Wai Noh Luc
Image of page 4
cancelled the booking 3 days before departure. Wai Noh Luc nonetheless wants the full sum he paid returned, on the ground that he has not used any of the services. (modified exam 09) The issue is whether WNL can claim back the full sum he paid on the grounds that he has not used any of the services. He is not allowed to do so as the contract expressly stated that if a cancellation is received any time less than a week before departure, 100% of the sum would be forfeited and he only cancelled the booking 3 days before departure. Thus, he would have breached the contract and not be able to receive his initial full sum payment. However, he can argue that the contract was terminated by frustration if the contract was radically different from what was originally envisaged. If a contract is entered into for a particular purpose and that purpose is no longer attainable, it would appear that unless both parties understand that purpose to be the very basis of the contract, the fact that one party entered into the contract for a particular purpose and that purpose is no longer attainable will not frustrate the contract. On the facts, WNL booked the tour with the purpose of going to Bali for his honeymoon. The question then is whether Pure Bliss understood that the basis of WNL booking the tour was for that purpose. On the facts,
Image of page 5
Image of page 6

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture