In [ case ], because the work had been done on the innocent party's land, the court felt that the innocent party had no choice but to complete the work. He was in possession of what he could not fail to keep. If the court had found otherwise, however, the builder would have been entitled to a quantum meruit to compensate him for the value of the work done. In the event, he was entitled to compensation for the value of the materials that he had left on site that had not been incorporated into the building and which the innocent party used to complete the work. This was because the innocent party had the choice as to whether or not to use these as they could have been returned.
Answer
Sumpter v Hedges
Tags
#contract #discharge #law
Question
In [ case ], because the work had been done on the innocent party's land, the court felt that the innocent party had no choice but to complete the work. He was in possession of what he could not fail to keep. If the court had found otherwise, however, the builder would have been entitled to a quantum meruit to compensate him for the value of the work done. In the event, he was entitled to compensation for the value of the materials that he had left on site that had not been incorporated into the building and which the innocent party used to complete the work. This was because the innocent party had the choice as to whether or not to use these as they could have been returned.
Answer
?
Tags
#contract #discharge #law
Question
In [ case ], because the work had been done on the innocent party's land, the court felt that the innocent party had no choice but to complete the work. He was in possession of what he could not fail to keep. If the court had found otherwise, however, the builder would have been entitled to a quantum meruit to compensate him for the value of the work done. In the event, he was entitled to compensation for the value of the materials that he had left on site that had not been incorporated into the building and which the innocent party used to complete the work. This was because the innocent party had the choice as to whether or not to use these as they could have been returned.
Answer
Sumpter v Hedges
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it In Sumpter v Hedges, because the work had been done on the innocent party's land, the court felt that the innocent party had no choice but to complete the work. He was in possession of what he could not fa
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.