There, are a number of express terms of this contract. First of all, the contract stipulates that ‘’Haks shall supply Yuippe with vintage Silex wines (2000) for a period of 12 months with the option of a further six months at the discretion of Yuippe. Under the term of the contract Haks is to deliver 4 instalments over twelve months with payment to be made 30 days after delivery . However, Yuippe breached express terms of the contract by not paying the first instalment because the contract stipulates that payment to make after 30 days of the delivery. In a commercial contract, the time of delivery is normally of the essence. If, the date is stipulated and if the buyer fails to give the payment that is a breach of condition. Therefore, the seller is entitled to repudiate the contract and sue for payment. In Hartley v Haymans [ 1902] 3 K. B. 475 the court was held that the time of delivery is a prima facie of the essence in commercial law. In Charles Rickards Ltd v Oenheim [ 1950] 1 K. B. 616 it was held that the notice had again made the time of essence. Section 61 of the SGA defines the delivery. In addition to, Yuippe requested Haks to make second delivery and would pay both instalments within 30 days of the second delivery to which Haks agreed. Yet, Yuippe did not settle the invoice with stipulates of 30 days but convinced Haks to make third delivery and Haks agreed to do that as well.
A condition is an important or central term of the contract. In Bunge Corporation v Tradax SA [ 1981] 2 All ER 513 the commercial significance of punctual compliance with stipulation time must be taken into an account, so that at common law where the late payment is not repudiatory. Therefore, punctual payment is an essence of a condition. As discussing from this case, if punctual payment is a condition of a contract, then Yuippe breached the contract in first and second delivery. In any contract, each consignment was to be paid separately, and if the parties agree that then the court will take the contract as severable. In Jackson v Rotax Motor and cycle Co [ 1990] 2 K. B. 937 it was held that the buyer was entitled to accept the later delivery. In relation to severable contract, whether it is breach of condition in relation to one or more instalments entitles the innocent party to regard the whole contract as required or whether it confined to the instalments is a severable breach. In Withers V Reynolds (1831) 2 B & Ad 882, Court of King’s Bench the court was held that this was a repudiation which justified Reynolds in refusing further deliveries. In Maple Flock Co V Universal Furniture products (Wembley)  1 K. B. 148 the court held that whether the breach was a repudiatory depended on the two factors. First, the breach of the ratio bore quantitatively of the contract and the breach repeated in later instalments. In Smyth ( Ross) v Bailey  3 All E. R. 60 it was held that a sufficiently serious breach to be a repudiation of the whole contract. This situation is depending upon in circumstances. In the situation of Haks, under the terms of contract Haks is to deliver 4 instalments over 12 months with payment to be made 30 days after delivery. Moreover, it was a severable contract and Yuippe breached the contract at the time of first and second delivery. Haks can bring action against Yuippe for the breach claim for damage of £ 1.5 million. S 49 of the SGA allows the seller to maintain an action for the price. First, as the term of the contract if the buyer has wrongfully refused or neglected to pay. Secondly, if the property has passed to the buyer or in a certain day the price is payable of irrespective delivery. The buyer’s failure to pay or refusal must have been wrongful. An action can be maintained if a particular date has been stipulated for payment after that date irrespective of whether the property has passed to the buyer. In Workman Clark v Lloyd Brazileno [ 1908]1 K. B. 968 it was held that at the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document