A breach of contract is a material non-compliance with the terms of a legally binding contract.
Enforcement of contracts is a necessary part of any legally binding contract: each party expects to obtain the benefit of the deal agreed by the contract.
If a party doesn't receive the benefit of the contract by reason of the other party's breach, the innocent party has a legal right to recover compensation for their loss in damages.
Business agreements are the centrepiece of commerce. Without contracts, there is no business.
It pays to know how they work, and when they’re breached.
What is a Breach of Contract?
Each party to a contract is entitled to perfect performance of the terms of the contract by the other party.
A party will be in breach of the contract - or break the contract - when they fail to perfectly perform one of the warranties, conditions or innominate terms (ie the terms of the contract) they have promised to perform.
The most common forms of breaches of contract are:
- defective performance: where the contract is partly performed but not to the standard required by the contract
- delayed performance: where a party does not perform on time, in accordance with the time frames required by the contract
- complete non-performance: a party does not do anything to perform the contract.
The consequences of a breach of contract depends upon the type of term which has been broken.
Breach of Contract Claims
There are a whole lot of moving parts when it comes to suing for breach of contract claims.
You have to set out the claim out in the particulars of claim, and prove the facts giving rise to the breach on the balance of probabilities to obtain a remedy.
When suing for breach of contract, there are several steps to go through to prepare the particulars of claim to include the essential ingredients and make out a cause of action for breach.
When you're on the other side - in breach of contract and receiving threats of litigation - taking advantage of mistakes by your counterpart can be fatal to their claim. The windows of opportunity usually don't last long.
It's actually quite easy to mess up a perfectly good legal claim for damages for breach of contract. Some businesses breaching contracts and leaving the innocent party in the lurch count on it.
In a clear-cut, indefensible case, a summary judgment application might be warranted. If a claim is not defended, default judgment is available to get judgment quickly. In either case, the claimant can move onto enforcement quickly.
Remedies for Breach of Contract
In contract law, a breach of contract gives rise to a cause of action where the innocent party has:
- a right to monetary compensation, that is, damages for failures to perform the contract
- if it's serious enough, the right to terminate the contract
- in some cases, may obtain specific performance of the contract, or an injunction to restrain further breaches of contract.
Even then though, the terms of a contract can seriously limit or expand the rights of an innocent party to damages and the other remedies which might be available.
When that happens, remedies that:
- would have been available are excluded, and
- might not have been available are accessible to the innocent party.
The consequences of a breach and the consequences of termination are quite different things. The consequences of a breach depends on the terms of contract itself and what the innocent party does when there is a breach of contract.
Breach of Contract Claims: How it Works
- What are the Elements of a Breach of Contract?
- express contracts and implied contracts
- express terms and implied terms
- Types of Terms of Contracts
- condition
- warranty
- innominate
- Consequences of Breach of Contract: What Happens?
- Repudiatory Breach
- Anticipatory Repudiatory Breach
- Assessing Repudiatory Breach
- What happens after a Repudiatory Breach?
- Affirmation and Repudiatory Breaches
- Consequences of Affirmation
- Consequences of Termination in contract law
- Alternatives to Repudiatory Breach
- Material Breach
- Fundamental Breach
- Substantial Breach
- Serious Breach
- What about "any breach" of contract?
- What if there's no termination clause at all?
- Illegal Contracts v Breach of Contract
What is a Legally Binding Contract?
A contract is an agreement recognised by law as legally binding. Because it's legally binding, legal rights - a cause of action - arises if it is breached, and the terms are enforceable against the party in breach.
There really is no definition of a contract, other than it is (1) an agreement, (2) which is legally binding.
A legally binding agreement is made when it satisfies 5 elements to form a contract.
The fundamental principles of contract law then apply to the agreement.
What are the Elements of a Breach of Contract?
To make out a claim for breach of contract, you need:
- a legally binding contract, whether it's an:
- express contract, or
- implied contract.
- non-compliance with one of the legally binding terms of that contract.
There are two possibilities for the term which is breached. It could be an:- express term, or
- implied term of the contract.
- The express term or implied term will be one of:
- a condition
- a warranty, or
- innominate term (also known as an "intermediate" term).
So, an express or implied term of a contract must be breached by a party to the contract (which may be express or an implied contract).
Then you have a cause of action for breach of contract, and can sue.
The breach of contract doesn't necessarily need to cause damage (the money remedy which awards compensation) to obtain a remedy for the breach.
Compensation in damages might not be the appropriate or even best remedy for the innocent party.
The remedy with most value might be an injunction to restrain further breaches of contract by the offending party, or force performance with an order for specific performance.
Types of Breach of Contract
If it is a breach of:
- condition: the innocent party may claim damages for the breach, as well as terminate the contract. This is known as a "repudiatory breach of contract".
Conditions are sometimes referred to as "fundamental terms". They're the same thing.
- warranty: the innocent party may claim damages caused to them by the breach of contract. They are not entitled to terminate the contract.
- "innominate" or "intermediate" term: whether the contract can be terminated depends upon the nature and seriousness of the consequences of breach of the term. "Innominate" and "intermediate" are interchangeable. They’re referring to the same thing.
An innominate term can be a breach of warranty or a breach of a condition. It depends on the terms of the contract and the circumstances of the case. More on that below.
How do you tell which is which?
Differences between conditions, warranties and innominate terms
Why is the difference important?
When you have a breach of condition, it doesn’t matter what the consequences of the breach might be. You can terminate the contract: the gravity or seriousness of the breach and/or the consequences are irrelevant.
That's not the case with warranties. No right to terminate arises. Only a claim for damages.
If it’s an innominate term, whether you can terminate or not … depends. It depends on the seriousness of the consequences of the breach of contract.
But before that, here’s an example of an innominate term.
This may come as a surprise:
Paying punctually under a commercial contract is an innominate term, not a condition unless special circumstances are satisfied.
That’s because time is not of the essence in respect of obligations to pay unless it’s expressly stated, or it’s drawn from the circumstances of the contract.
And that's rare. They usually aren't in commercial and business contracts.
In the meantime, let’s look at the differences between the types of terms.
Starting Point
The starting point is that a term is innominate unless it is clear that it is intended to be a condition or a warranty.
That’s the default position: it’s an innominate term unless you can show otherwise.
Most of the time, it’s hard to tell.
So it makes sense to know what conditions and warranties actually are first. You’ll know what innominate terms aren’t.
Conditions
Conditions are the most important terms of a contract. They are major ones.
But then, there’s no fixed definition of what amounts to a condition.
However, conditions of contracts are:
- "essential stipulations" which the party guarantees will be performed. Performance of the term is essential to compliance with the contract
- said to "go to the root of the contract".
That is, they are terms that were essential for the contract to be formed in the first place.
The expression "condition" describes the seriousness required to give rise to a right to terminate for breach of the condition.
You’ll get a better sense of the expression in a moment.
- breach of the contractual term would frustrate the commercial purpose of the contract for one of the parties.
It comes to this:
The innocent party would lose substantially the whole benefit they expected to derive from the contract.
Conditions will vary from contract to contract. The sort of factors which point towards a term being a condition include:
- Whether the innocent party thought the term would be strictly complied with
- The likely effects of any breach of the term
- How important it was to the innocent party
A series of legal factors have been developed over time to help decide when a term of a contract is a condition or not.
Breaches of conditions are so serious, that it justifies the innocent party ending the contract altogether. When the innocent party ends or cancels the contract, it is known as "termination" of the contract: it's one of the 4 ways to end a contract.
So conditions are a fundamental part of the deal that was agreed by the contract.
Next up, warranties.
Warranties
Warranties are lesser or minor terms of the contract. They're collateral to the main purpose of the contract.
This lesser status of importance means the innocent party can only claim damages when a warranty is breached, but not terminate the contract. That's the technical meaning of a warranty in law: it's a term of the contract which does not entitle the innocent party to terminate for its breach.
The definition of a warranty is a negative definition: if the term of the contract is not a condition and not an innominate term, it's a warranty.
The most frequent type of term found in contracts are innominate terms.
Innominate Terms
Innominate terms are also known as "intermediate" terms.
They are different to conditions and warranties.
Whether or not a party can terminate the contract depends on the seriousness of the consequences of the breach of the term. Not the status or importance of the term itself (as with warranties and conditions).
The seriousness of the breach is assessed at the time of the termination, having regard for:
- what happened leading up to the breach of the term, and
- what's likely to happen next, if the contract is not terminated.
Business Case Example: Innominate Term - Payment Clause
A contractor was entitled to be paid £50 per hour for consultancy services, plus expenses. He paid expenses out of his own pocket and was reimbursed by the company.
The contract was the contractor’s only contract. It was the only means of support beyond the use of savings. Both parties knew it. The contract was quite important to the contractor.
None of the contractor's invoices were paid on time. And delays in payment increased over time. Payments were made between 1 and 9 months after their due date.
The contractor knew that his work for the company was being paid for on time (by the ultimate customer). He made it clear he knew that he was being used as an overdraft facility.
When the contractor moved to another company, the company paid up, so that it could claim on a restrictive covenant.
The judge said he suspected that the consultant was seen as a soft target by the company.
The breaches of payment provisions were held to be substantial, persistent and ... cynical. It was a repudiatory breach.
In this illustration, it goes the other way:
The customer paid its supplier for facilities services late on a number of occasions. Payment was required within 90 days of invoice.
The delays to payment in full were relatively short: between 2 and 20 days. On average, 8 days a piece. The reason for the lateness was known to the suppliers: the purchasers were paying from the receipts made by onward sale of the goods delivered.
The suppliers well knew and understood the reasons why payments were late.
The supplier also had no doubt that they would receive payment in full. The loss suffered by the suppliers was marginal, and recoverable.
That belief (that they would be paid in full) was one of several factors taken into account to decide that the late payments didn’t add up to a repudiation of the contract.
Consequences of Breach of Contract
When the defaulting party does not comply with a contract, the innocent party can terminate for:
- breach of a condition of the contract, which automatically qualifies as a repudiatory breach
- repudiatory breach: breach of an innominate term where the consequences are so serious that it justifies ending the contract for the bad conduct
- anticipatory repudiatory breach: that is, where the defaulting party makes it clear to the innocent party that it:
- will not perform the contract at all
- will commit a breach of a condition in the future, or
- will comment a breach of an innominate term in the future,
and the consequences will be so serious that it will justify termination.
(You can also have an anticipatory breach of warranty. You just can’t terminate for it.)
Anticipatory breaches are also called "renunciatory breaches" of contract. It's different lingo for the same thing.
When a repudiatory or anticipatory breach takes place, it is said to be a "repudiation of the contract".
Different consequences can follow from a breach of contract:
- a breach of warranty limits the innocent party to claim damages, that is a legal obligation to pay money for the loss caused by the breach
- the contract itself may set out the potential consequences for any breach, or a particular type or class of breach
- the remedies available to the innocent party may be limited or extended by the term of the contract itself.
What's a repudiatory breach of contract?
The most authoritative and frequently applied test to ascertain whether a repudiatory breach has taken place is that "the breach must go to the root of the contract".
It applies to breaches of innominate terms (and it's assumed for conditions of contracts).
But what does it mean?
The expression "the breach must go to the root of the contract" describes a breach which takes account of:
- the nature of the contract
- the legal relationship the contract creates
- the nature of the term breached
- the kind and degree of the breach, and
- consequences of the breach for the other party.
Examples of breaches which go "to the root of the contract" include where the defaulting party:
- indicates an intention to abandon and altogether refuse performance of the contract
- shows an intention no longer to be bound by the contract
- intends in fact to fulfil the contract, but may be determined to do so only in a manner substantially inconsistent with its obligations
- intends to deprive the innocent party of substantially the whole benefit that the innocent party should obtain from the further performance of the defaulting party's own contractual undertakings
- deprives the innocent party of a substantial part of the benefit to which it is entitled under the contract, so that the consequences of the breach would be unfair to the innocent party to hold it to the contract and leave the innocent party to the remedy of damages.
But these are only a few of the ways which courts measure the seriousness of a breach of contract. There are many more.
Why are there so many tests for breach?
Cases for breach of contract are so fact-sensitive that some tests are better suited to particular types of cases and particular types of breaches.
Basically, the different tests suit different types of cases.
So what’s the magic potion to work it out?
Courts decided long ago that it would be a mistake to formulate a fixed rule or formula to decide whether a breach was repudiatory or not.
The law uses these open-textured expressions like those listed above to decide whether the innocent party can argue successfully that they are justified to terminate the contract.
So the formula for assessing breaches of contract is set out in the descriptive tests above.
What does a repudiatory breach look like?
Examples of Repudiatory Breach of Contract
These could well be repudiatory breaches. The outcome also depends on the other factors mentioned above, such as the written terms of the contract:
- Guaranteed overnight courier services:
The implication here is that time for delivery goes to the essence of the contract. If package is not delivered overnight, without any intervening events outside the control of the courier, it's probably a repudiatory breach - Website hosting company says that it has a 99.8% up-time per month:
Your website goes down for 5 continuous days - You order a red dress from a dressmaker. You specified the colour. You receive a blue dress
- Internet service provider: The specification of the minimum bandwidth available at any given time is not met
- Supplier of steel: You order 40-foot lengths of steel from a supplier of steel. They deliver 10-foot lengths.
- Phone supplier: You order an Android phone, and you receive an Apple phone.
Anticipatory Breach of Contract
Conduct renounces a contract if it shows an intention to commit a repudiatory breach. The party doesn’t intend to perform their future contract obligations when they fall due.
So if before the time arrives to perform, a contracting party expresses an intention to break the contract, they commit an anticipatory breach.
When that happens, the innocent party is entitled to jump first, and terminate the contract.
It’s not limited though to situations where a defaulting party says that they intend to breach the contract. It also applies:
- when the defaulting party disables itself from performing an obligation which must be performed in the future; and even where
- the obligation to be performed at a future date is a contingent obligation.
The communication of the intention may be by words, writing or by conduct.
Examples of Anticipatory Breach
Showing the intention that a party no longer considers themselves bound by the contract would probably be satisfied by circumstances such as:
- Denying access to property required for the innocent party to perform the contract
- A supplier saying that goods won’t be supplied when the time to deliver goods arrives
- A party becomes unable or incapable of performing the contract, despite genuinely saying, "I want to perform it", or "I would like to perform it but cannot".
These expressions translate in law to "I will not perform" - A party says that it intends to perform the contract in a way inconsistent with the terms of the contract
- A party wishes to impose additional terms on performance, where there is no legal entitlement to do so. That is, the additional terms don't form part of the contractual relationship.
Example:
In one case, the purchaser of goods agreed to pay cash on delivery of the goods.
After a few deliveries, the purchaser said that in the future, it would only pay for the product on delivery of the next batch of product.
Basically, the purchaser tried to convert a cash transaction into a credit transaction... after the (legally binding) contract had been agreed.
That was an attempt to alter the substance of the agreement, and a repudiatory breach.
What are the legal rights for anticipatory breach?
The threat not to perform the contract must be sufficiently serious.
Threats to breach a warranty in the future will leave the innocent party with a claim damages for the expected breach (if it materialises), rather than being entitled to terminate.
Threats or behaviour which go to the conditions of the contract give rise to ... (wait for it) a "repudiatory anticipatory breach of contract". When that happens, the innocent party will be entitled to:
- terminate the contract before the time for performance arrives, and
- claim damages.
Alternatively, the innocent party may choose to wait for the time for performance to arrive. That is, wait for the defaulting party to actually default on the contract.
- If the defaulting party does not perform, the innocent may elect to terminate the contract at that time, and sue for damages.
- This provides the defaulting party an opportunity to change position in the intervening period, and perform the contract when it is required to.
- If the party threatening breach does perform with the terms of the contract, the right to terminate is lost. The contract continues in force, as if there had been no threat of the anticipatory breach.
Assessing a repudiatory breach
To decide whether it is a repudiatory breach, courts take into account a host of factors:
- the nature and effect of the breach
- the effect of the breach, on the facts: the difference between promised performance and the performance which in fact occurred
- the parties' knowledge about the likely effect of a breach.
This test factors in the overall assessment could be the likely future events, judged by reference to the facts as they stood at the date of repudiation.
So:
- If it does amount to a repudiatory breach, the innocent party is entitled to terminate.
- If it doesn’t, it is treated in the same way as a warranty and the innocent party has no right to terminate and can only sue for damages.
Cumulative Effect of several breaches of contract
Let’s say you have a series of minor breach of contract, whether of warranties or innominate terms. Do they all add up to a repudiatory breach?
Sometimes.
The cumulative effect of the breaches needs to be serious enough to justify the innocent party to bring the contract to a premature end. "Serious" in this context means severe.
The history and accumulation of past breaches paints the picture for to show what might or is likely to happen in the future.
When deciding whether or not a contract has been breached and whether it is entitled to terminate, the innocent party does well to:
- identify the precise term(s) of the contract which the defaulting party has not complied with, and
- have a clear assessment of why the events amount to a breach of contract, and
- identify when, where and how the defaulting party was in breach in each case.
Doing so reduces the scope of contract disputes.
What happens after a repudiatory breach?
Acceptance of Repudiatory Breach
To terminate the contract, in the vast majority of cases, the innocent party must tell the defaulting party that it "accepts" their repudiatory breach.
This "acceptance" of the repudiatory breach:
- must be communicated clearly and unequivocally
- doesn’t require any particular form.
Really, all the innocent party needs to do is say the contract is at an end. Communication may be by behaviour. In some cases, not responding to correspondence has been sufficient.
It's the intention to treat the contract as discharged that needs to be communicated: ie, it’s at an end.
It’s pretty stunning how often it isn’t done. Situations can complicate unnecessarily for it.
Not accepting Repudiatory Breach
Not "accepting" the breach means the contract continues in force for the benefit of the defaulting party and innocent party alike.
Each party continues to be bound by their contractual obligations. However, the innocent party retains the right to claim damages for the breach.
Inactivity or acquiescence does not usually amount to acceptance of a repudiatory breach.
But then, there’s no rule of law that says the innocent party must accept a repudiatory breach and terminate.
After all, the innocent party may not wish to bring the contract to an end. For instance, the innocent party may want to apply for specific performance of the contract – to force the defaulting party to perform the contract.
But it’s not exercising the right to do so (by thinking that it happens automatically) that can cause serious, serious problems and complexity for the innocent party, and lead to further contract disputes.
Let me explain.
Affirmation and Repudiatory breaches
There should be no significant delay after the time that the innocent party becomes aware of the breach and communication of termination. If that's what the innocent party wants to do.
The innocent party can't affirm a contract where they have knowledge of the facts which give rise to the repudiatory breach. If you don’t know about the events that allow you to terminate, you can’t affirm the contract.
Example:
A tenant of business premises failed to pay rent on time. That failure gave the landlord the right to terminate the lease.
The tenant ended up paying the rent, and the landlord accepted the payment. Afterwards, the landlord purported to exercise the right to terminate.
The landlord affirmed the lease by accepting the rent.
Accepting the rent was an unequivocal affirmation of the continuation of the lease. The lease was affirmed on the subsequent payment date and operated to waive the right to terminate altogether.
Accordingly, when the innocent party doesn't take any steps to accept the breach (or by conduct), and continues with the contract they are likely to be taken to 'affirm' the contract.
That choice is known as an "election": the innocent party "elected" to continue the contract. It chose not to accept the repudiatory breach rather than end it.
But then there are cases which say that delay accepting the breach of contract is an implied affirmation of the contract.
When is too long to wait?
There is that period of time between the repudiatory breach and potential affirmation of the contract.
If the innocent does nothing for too long, there must come a time when the law will deem the innocent party as having affirmed.
It’s a good idea to expressly reserve your rights to treat the contract as repudiated, so that it is clear that your behaviour does not affirm the contract, but it may not be effective. That's because some acts are seen as affirming contracts, and can't be considered as anything else. Such as a landlord accepting late rent under a lease (see above).
During that period of time, the innocent party has a chance to make their mind up whether to "accept" the breach and terminate, or "not accept" the breach and allow the contract to continue.
During this period, the contract continues in force.
Also, events may develop during this period. Such as:
- a force majeure event takes place
- the contract is frustrated, or
- the big one:
the innocent party puts themselves in repudiatory breach of contract
If that happens, the previously defaulting party can terminate on the (previously) innocent party – and can claim damages for the (previously innocent) party’s breach of contract.
For risk management purposes, it may be simpler:
- to make an election as soon as possible, to maintain control of the situation, and
- for the innocent party remain hyper-cautious to not place themselves in breach of contract during that brief period.
Otherwise, real and valuable legal rights are easily lost. In that decision-making period, the defaulting party might fix or rectify their repudiatory breach: which means that the right to terminate is lost permanently for that breach.
Consequences of Affirmation
When a contract is affirmed:
- the right to terminate for the specific breach of contract can’t be recovered or got back.
It’s lost forever:
The innocent party can't then go back and change their mind at a later date and "un-affirm" the contract. - a new or "fresh" repudiatory breach is needed to give rise to another right to terminate.
That is, the defaulting party needs to commit another repudiatory breach to give rise to a right to terminate.
One further point.
Some breaches of contract are considered "continuing breaches of contract".
For instance, say a contracting party says that it has power to licence use of a software application. But it doesn’t have that power. Usually, that can’t be cured. It’s a continuing infringement by the licensor, and probably a continuing repudiatory breach that can't be affirmed.
Only in very limited cases do contracts terminate "automatically" for repudiatory breach. If the acceptance of repudiation is not communicated in time, most litigants argue that some sort of conduct on their part communicated the "acceptance".
Illustrations of affirmation:
- where the supplier is the innocent party: refusing to deliver goods or services
- where the customer is the innocent party: not accepting goods or services offered for delivery
- in both cases:
- refusing to communicate;
- saying the circumstances were such that the contract automatically came to an end.
Don’t be told terminating a contract is easy
It’s not. Unless you do it by agreement. In writing. Signed by the parties.
What makes terminating for breach of contract difficult - and risky - is this:
- It is not always clear from the facts or the terms of the contract whether the term is a condition or an innominate term.
- When it’s an innominate term, you often can’t tell with real certainty that the consequences of the breach are so serious that it would be considered by a court to be a repudiatory breach.
When it’s not
Let’s say you terminate a contract. You say there has been a repudiatory breach.
Then let’s say that it turns out that it wasn’t a repudiatory breach at all...
Here’s the Message:
By attempting to terminate the contract for a repudiatory breach – which isn't – is itself a repudiatory breach in contract law.
So as we say, terminating a contract before its time is a serious business.
Oh, and then the defaulting party will of course say…
"We weren’t in repudiatory breach and you are in repudiatory breach yourself.
We're entitled to terminate and claim damages and if you don’t within [a short space of time] [do this], [we'll do this legally unpleasant thing] …"
What they’re doing is setting up a counterclaim – a court claim to make against you, if you make a court claim against them.
The better way is to be sure of your ground. Do the job properly. Avoid the counterclaim arguments. Or minimise your business's exposure so much that the counterclaim arguments sound unreal and far-fetched. Sometimes, that’s a "win" in the law.
You should to be sure of your ground before you start making allegations of repudiatory breach. Or have good reason to take the risk.
Consequences of Termination in Contract Law
Breaches of contract usually result in loss of money, property or services to the innocent party.
But just because a contract terminates doesn’t mean the entire legal relationship is at an end.
It actually continues in part.
When a contract is terminated for repudiatory breach:
- Each party’s legal right to have the contract performed by the other party comes to an end. Neither the innocent party or the defaulting party is required to perform contractual obligations which remain unperformed.
For example, a buyer is not required to accept goods which a supplier tries to continue to supply. If the buyer does accept the goods, the goods would probably be accepted under a fresh contract (of undetermined terms).
- Neither party is obligated to do anything specified in the contract, with minor exceptions.
In business contracts, "Survival of Terms clauses" state which provisions continue in force after the contract ends. These usually express the intention that confidential information, indemnities, limitations of liability, amongst others, are to continue to force.
The general law applies to continue terms of the contract which would be reasonably supposed to continue after termination: such as rights to payment accrued during the contract (ie before termination).
- The legal right to performance (which ends on termination) transforms into a right to sue for damages.
Damages is the right to recover monetary compensation for financial caused to the innocent party by the breach of contract.
At termination, there is no legal right to have the contract performed, because it has ended.
The transformation of the legal right from performance to damages means that the innocent party can recover what they expected to receive under the terms of the contract.
What is the measure of damages? How do you calculate it?
In short form: it's the amount that the innocent party is worse off, than it would have been, if the defaulting party had carried out the contract properly - The innocent party can chose between two remedies: a claim damages or an account of profits as the measure compensation to be paid.
An account of profits is calculated differently to damages. Damages are usually the greater sum, due to the rules of law involved. - Unconditional Rights continue: The legal rights under the contract which were acquired "unconditionally" during the contract continue.
For example, if ownership in say, a car was transferred as part of the contract - the car remains the property of the party which received ownership. That part of the transaction is not "undone".
But then, the terms and conditions of the contract can have a real impact on the consequences which follow from a breach.
What about late payments in business contracts?
Late Payments: Employment Contracts
The truth is that late payment is not always a repudiatory breach of contract. Even in contracts of employment.
Payment clauses are in commercial contracts by default innominate terms, unless the contract says otherwise.
Whether it is or not depends on the seriousness of the breaches on the particular facts of the case.
But then, payments under employment contracts have elevated importance in contrast to business-to-business contracts: Cantor Fitzgerald v Callaghan & Others [1999] ICR.
Whether the failure to pay salary or wages is a repudiatory breach depends on a series of factors. They include whether:
- it is a temporary fault, say failure of IT systems, an accounting mistake, due to illness, accident or other unexpected events.
- late payment is deliberate
- the failure or delay in payment were repeated, persistent, or unexplained, or worse: cynical.
Courts examine the impact of the breaches in the context of the transaction as a whole in order to decide whether breaches are repudiatory.
When will a term be a condition of a contract?
In a time-honoured judgment, Bentsen v. Taylor, Sons & Co. (No.2) [1893] 2 QB 274, it was said:
There is no way of deciding that question except by looking at the contract in the light of the surrounding circumstances, and then making up one's mind whether the intention of the parties, as gathered from the contract itself, will best be carried out by treating the promise as a warranty sounding only in damages, or as a condition precedent by the failure to perform which the other party is relieved of his liability
It’s in effect a value judgment about the commercial significance of the term in question.
According to C21 London Estates Limited v Maurice Macneill Iona (2017), a term will be a condition of a contract when:
- legislation states that the term will be a condition
- case law says that the type of term will be a "condition"
- the contract itself describes it as a "condition", on a correct reading of the contract
- the innocent party may terminate the contract for breach of the term, no matter what the factual consequences
- it’s intended to operate as a condition as a matter of interpretation of the contract.
They’re the main ones.
But there are other potential factors too, such as:
- whether the innocent party thought the term would be strictly complied with
- the interplay between the term and the other provisions of the contract
- the likely effects of breach of the term
- whether the innocent party would be adequately compensated for breach of the term
- the nature of the contract in question
- the nature of the subject matter of the contract
- the nature of the term and the obligation which it creates.
Sound complicated? That's because it is....
Alternatives to Repudiatory Breach
You might encounter different phases in business contracts:
And then you have contract which say parties may terminate for "any breach of contract".
Why does it matter?
These phrases may operate to change the standard of breach required to terminate contracts. The alternative wording appears in clauses such as this:
Either party may terminate this Agreement without liability to the other immediately on giving notice to the other if the other party commits a [repudiatory / material / fundamental / substantial / serious / any] breach of any of the terms of this Agreement and (if such a breach is remediable) fails to remedy that breach within 30 days of that party being notified in writing of the breach.
Contracts are read on their own terms. If the contract says "material", "fundamental" or "substantial", that’s what’s required to amount to a breach of contract.
So how is this alternative wording interpreted?
What is a "Material Breach" of Contract?
"Material breach" is usually interpreted as something more serious than a breach of warranty, so it's a "substantial" breach of contract. However, it's less serious than a repudiatory breach: Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust v Compass Group UK and Ireland [2013] EWCA Civ 200.
To assess whether a breach is material, relevant factors include:
- the breaches that have taken place in the case
- how the innocent party was affected by the breach
- the contracting partner’s explanation of the breaches
- the express and implied terms of the agreement
- the consequences of holding the agreement:
- as ended, or
- as continuing.
A range of factors are taken into account by a court to decide whether a business agreement has been materially breached.
What is "Fundamental Breach" of Contract?
The term "fundamental breach" is a hangover from the law as it used to be.
"Fundamental breach" is usually read as a reference to a repudiatory breach of contract unless the contract expresses a different intention: Suisse Atlanique Societe d’Armement Maritime SA v NV Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale (1967).
So the breach must "go to the effect root of the contract". If not, it must at least affect the very substance of the contract, or frustrate the commercial purpose of the deal agreed in the contract.
Considerations include:
- the surrounding circumstances of the contract, and
- how the term in question affects the transaction that the contract was intended to carry out.
What is a "Substantial Breach"?
A reference to a substantial breach of contract is likely to be taken as a reference to a repudiatory breach: Crane Co v Wittenborg A/S [1999] All ER(D) 1487, or depending on the interpretation of the contract in the case something slightly less than a repudiatory breach.
What is a "Serious Breach"?
When judges refer to "serious breach" in the case law, their use of the term equates it to a repudiatory breach.
There's no question that there will be blue sky between a breach of warranty and a serious breach.
It will be required to be a significant breach of contract, and at least as significant as a material breach or a substantial breach.
What about "any breach" of contract?
Take a deep breath.
Historically, references to "any breach" have been interpreted as references to repudiatory breaches.
However subsequent decisions have found that "any breach" meant exactly that: ie a reference to a warranty or an innominate term (with regard for the effect of the breach of the innominate term).
How do you decide?
Business contracts are interpreted with business commonsense.
It usually doesn't make commercial sense for a party to terminate a contract for any breach, no matter how trivial: University of Wales v London College of Business Ltd [2015] EWHC 1280.
It has been said "any breach" is less likely to literally mean "any breach" where:
- it's the sort of contract where a wide variety of minor breaches are likely
- the duration of the contract runs for many years
- the contract is for a high value over its term
- the consequences of many types of breaches are likely to be trivial
- commercial commonsense requires the contract to be understood as giving a right to terminate only for a serious breach
- there is an opportunity to remedy the "any breach"
- the consequences of reading the contract in that way results in an unreasonable, uncommercial and in total contradiction to the whole purpose of the contract.
Contracts are not read to have commercially unrealistic outcomes. They are interpreted so as not to defeat the commercial purpose of the contract.
But these days, Courts give contracts their literal meaning, provided that words used are unambiguous. If that approach to interpretation is adopted that means the words "any breach" in a contract will be read as literally, "any breach" and a reference to a warranty or innominate term.
What if there's no termination clause at all?
Don't be fooled.
Just because a contract doesn’t contain a termination clause doesn't necessarily prevent a party terminating the contract under the general law for repudiatory breach.
It is likely to require clear words to prevent a party from exercising their general law rights to terminate for repudiatory breach. That's an application of the clear words principle.
Breach of Contract Solicitors: Business Law
We're a law firm based on Fleet Street in London UK. We advise SMEs on breach of contract, business law, legal remedies and defences available to legal claims.
As breach of contract solicitors, our lawyers advise on all types of problems and issues that arise with company breach of contracts.
Need legal advice on business law, on a company contract and whether it's been breached? Contact our business contract lawyers to find out how we can be of help on +44 20 7036 9282 or at contact@hallellis.co.uk.