It remains unclear what will constitute a legitimate interest. However, in one of the more recent authorities that discuss this criterion, Ocean Marine Navigation Ltd v Koch Carbon Inc (The Dynamic) [2003] EWHC 1936 (Comm); [2003] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 693, Simon J said that it will only be in extreme cases that the innocent party will not have a legitimate interest in affirmation. He stated:
(i) The burden is on the contract breaker to show that the innocent party has no legitimate interest in performing the contract rather than claiming damages.
(ii) This burden is not discharged merely [...].
(iii) The exception to the general rule applies only in extreme cases where damages would be an adequate remedy and where an election to keep the contract alive would be unreasonable.
Answer
by showing that the benefit to the other party is small in comparison to the loss to the contract breaker
Tags
#contract #discharge #law
Question
It remains unclear what will constitute a legitimate interest. However, in one of the more recent authorities that discuss this criterion, Ocean Marine Navigation Ltd v Koch Carbon Inc (The Dynamic) [2003] EWHC 1936 (Comm); [2003] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 693, Simon J said that it will only be in extreme cases that the innocent party will not have a legitimate interest in affirmation. He stated:
(i) The burden is on the contract breaker to show that the innocent party has no legitimate interest in performing the contract rather than claiming damages.
(ii) This burden is not discharged merely [...].
(iii) The exception to the general rule applies only in extreme cases where damages would be an adequate remedy and where an election to keep the contract alive would be unreasonable.
Answer
?
Tags
#contract #discharge #law
Question
It remains unclear what will constitute a legitimate interest. However, in one of the more recent authorities that discuss this criterion, Ocean Marine Navigation Ltd v Koch Carbon Inc (The Dynamic) [2003] EWHC 1936 (Comm); [2003] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 693, Simon J said that it will only be in extreme cases that the innocent party will not have a legitimate interest in affirmation. He stated:
(i) The burden is on the contract breaker to show that the innocent party has no legitimate interest in performing the contract rather than claiming damages.
(ii) This burden is not discharged merely [...].
(iii) The exception to the general rule applies only in extreme cases where damages would be an adequate remedy and where an election to keep the contract alive would be unreasonable.
Answer
by showing that the benefit to the other party is small in comparison to the loss to the contract breaker
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it erest in affirmation. He stated:
(i) The burden is on the contract breaker to show that the innocent party has no legitimate interest in performing the contract rather than claiming damages.
(ii) This burden is not discharged merely <span>by showing that the benefit to the other party is small in comparison to the loss to the contract breaker.
(iii) The exception to the general rule applies only in extreme cases where damages would be an adequate remedy and where an election to keep the contract alive would be unreasona
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.