E-Seminar 20 - Case Summaries (Last 3) Hochster v De La Tour [1853] 2 E&B 678 Facts: - De La Tour concluded an agreement to employ Mr. Hochster to act as a courier and travel with him in Europe on 1 June 1852. On 11 May 1852, De La Tours wrote to Hochster informing them that they no longer require his services. On 22 May 1852, Hochster brought an action of damages for anticipatory breach of contract. De La Tours argued that he could not bring an action before the date on which the contract was due to commence. Issues: - Whether a party's refusal to perform the agreement before the date of commencement entitled the other party to damages. - Whether this breach is actionable before the date on which the contract was due to commence. Held: - When a contract provides for a promise for future conduct, a party refusal to perform the agreement, thus renouncing the contract, becomes liable for breach of contract. - A contract for future conduct constitutes an implied promise that, in the meantime, neither party will prejudice the performance of that promise. - The Court rejected the defendant's argument that the other party must remain ready to perform the contract until after the commencement day, thus preventing him from bringing a suit beforehand. - The renunciation of a contract of future conduct by one party immediately dissolves the obligation of the other party to perform the contract, thus leaving "no reason for requiring that the other wait till the day arrives before seeking his remedy by action." (p 928ti Thus, a breach of contract by renouncing the duty to perform the future obligation immediately renders the party liable to a suit of action for damages by the injured party. - The Court awarded damages to Hochster. Geys v Societe Generale London [2012] UKSC 63 Facts: - The claimant's employment by the bank had been terminated. The parties disputed the sums due, and the date of the termination of the contract. The court was asked ... Issue:
- 'Does a repudiation (rejectionti of a contract of employment by the employer which takes the form of an express and immediate dismissal automatically terminate the contract?' Held: - Mr Gey's appeal succeeded (Lord Sumption dissentingti. A wrongful repudiation (rejectionti terminates the contract only if and when accepted by the innocent party. Vitol SA v Norelf Ltd [1996] AC 800 Facts: - The defendant buyers - Vitol (Vti, entered into a contract with the plaintiff sellers - Norelf (Nti to purchase a cargo of propane at a price of $4ftft per tone. The cargo was to be shipped from Houston in the US and delivered between 1 and 7 March 1991. On 8 March, the buyers sent a telex to the sellers that they had been advised that the vessel would not complete loading until 9 March and accordingly, the cargo would not be delivered on time. In light of the breach of this condition, V wanted