Although the right of election is well established in the law, a question about its across-the- board application was raised in [ case ], where Geys’ employers were in repudiatory breach of contract in dismissing him. Despite having been taken at once to clear his desk and escorted from the building, Geys declined to accept the contract as at an end. On the facts, this made a difference of several million euros to the ‘compensation payment’ to be made to Geys. However, the employers argued that the usual ‘elective’ rule does not apply to employment contracts; rather, in the event of a repudiatory breach of such a contract, and irrespective of the innocent party’s wishes, it was argued that the contract is automatically at an end. While support for both views—both for and against the application of the elective rule to employment contracts—could be found in an extensive and inconsistent case-law, the majority of the Supreme Court (Lord Sumption dissenting) preferred to treat the usual rule as applicable. Lord Hope, capturing the majority’s thinking, observed (at para 15): ‘The automatic theory can operate to the disadvantage of the injured party [i.e. Geys] in a way that enables the wrongdoer to benefit from his own wrong. The law should seek to avoid such an obvious injustice. Where there is a real choice as to the direction of travel, the common law should favour the direction that is least likely to do harm to the injured party.’
Answer
Société Générale v Geys [2012] UKSC 63
Tags
#contract #discharge #law
Question
Although the right of election is well established in the law, a question about its across-the- board application was raised in [ case ], where Geys’ employers were in repudiatory breach of contract in dismissing him. Despite having been taken at once to clear his desk and escorted from the building, Geys declined to accept the contract as at an end. On the facts, this made a difference of several million euros to the ‘compensation payment’ to be made to Geys. However, the employers argued that the usual ‘elective’ rule does not apply to employment contracts; rather, in the event of a repudiatory breach of such a contract, and irrespective of the innocent party’s wishes, it was argued that the contract is automatically at an end. While support for both views—both for and against the application of the elective rule to employment contracts—could be found in an extensive and inconsistent case-law, the majority of the Supreme Court (Lord Sumption dissenting) preferred to treat the usual rule as applicable. Lord Hope, capturing the majority’s thinking, observed (at para 15): ‘The automatic theory can operate to the disadvantage of the injured party [i.e. Geys] in a way that enables the wrongdoer to benefit from his own wrong. The law should seek to avoid such an obvious injustice. Where there is a real choice as to the direction of travel, the common law should favour the direction that is least likely to do harm to the injured party.’
Answer
?
Tags
#contract #discharge #law
Question
Although the right of election is well established in the law, a question about its across-the- board application was raised in [ case ], where Geys’ employers were in repudiatory breach of contract in dismissing him. Despite having been taken at once to clear his desk and escorted from the building, Geys declined to accept the contract as at an end. On the facts, this made a difference of several million euros to the ‘compensation payment’ to be made to Geys. However, the employers argued that the usual ‘elective’ rule does not apply to employment contracts; rather, in the event of a repudiatory breach of such a contract, and irrespective of the innocent party’s wishes, it was argued that the contract is automatically at an end. While support for both views—both for and against the application of the elective rule to employment contracts—could be found in an extensive and inconsistent case-law, the majority of the Supreme Court (Lord Sumption dissenting) preferred to treat the usual rule as applicable. Lord Hope, capturing the majority’s thinking, observed (at para 15): ‘The automatic theory can operate to the disadvantage of the injured party [i.e. Geys] in a way that enables the wrongdoer to benefit from his own wrong. The law should seek to avoid such an obvious injustice. Where there is a real choice as to the direction of travel, the common law should favour the direction that is least likely to do harm to the injured party.’
Answer
Société Générale v Geys [2012] UKSC 63
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it Although the right of election is well established in the law, a question about its across-the- board application was raised in Société Générale v Geys [2012] UKSC 63, where Geys’ employers were in repudiatory breach of contract in dismissing him. Despite having been taken at once to clear his desk and escorted from the building, Geys declined to acc
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.