The defendants contracted with White and Carter for the latter to provide advertising services in relation to their (the defendants') garage business. Shortly after entering into the contract, the defendants notified White and Carter that they no longer required these services. There was no cooling-off period in this contract; the defendants were signalling a clear breach of condition. As such, it presented White and Carter with a simple choice: either to accept the defendants' repudiation, treat the contract as at an end, and sue for damages, or to affirm the contract, treating it as still in place. White and Carter decided to affirm the contract, to provide the advertising services notwithstanding the defendants' repudiation, and to bill the defendants (as per the contract) for the services so provided. The majority of the House of Lords held that White and Carter were within their rights to do this.
Answer
White and Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor [1962] AC 413
Tags
#contract #law #terms
Question
The defendants contracted with White and Carter for the latter to provide advertising services in relation to their (the defendants') garage business. Shortly after entering into the contract, the defendants notified White and Carter that they no longer required these services. There was no cooling-off period in this contract; the defendants were signalling a clear breach of condition. As such, it presented White and Carter with a simple choice: either to accept the defendants' repudiation, treat the contract as at an end, and sue for damages, or to affirm the contract, treating it as still in place. White and Carter decided to affirm the contract, to provide the advertising services notwithstanding the defendants' repudiation, and to bill the defendants (as per the contract) for the services so provided. The majority of the House of Lords held that White and Carter were within their rights to do this.
Answer
?
Tags
#contract #law #terms
Question
The defendants contracted with White and Carter for the latter to provide advertising services in relation to their (the defendants') garage business. Shortly after entering into the contract, the defendants notified White and Carter that they no longer required these services. There was no cooling-off period in this contract; the defendants were signalling a clear breach of condition. As such, it presented White and Carter with a simple choice: either to accept the defendants' repudiation, treat the contract as at an end, and sue for damages, or to affirm the contract, treating it as still in place. White and Carter decided to affirm the contract, to provide the advertising services notwithstanding the defendants' repudiation, and to bill the defendants (as per the contract) for the services so provided. The majority of the House of Lords held that White and Carter were within their rights to do this.
Answer
White and Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor [1962] AC 413
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it In White and Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor [1962] AC 413, the defendants contracted with White and Carter for the latter to provide advertising services in relation to their (the defendants') garage business. Shortly after entering into the
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.