Bolton v Mahadeva
A contract is not substantially performed where the defects are serious in relation to the whole work, so nothing is payable.
Facts
Mr Bolton agreed to install a central heating system in Mr Mahadeva's house for a lump sum of £560. When it was finished, the system was defective: it gave off fumes in the living room, and it did not heat the house adequately, with some rooms being up to 10 per cent colder than they should have been. The cost of putting the defects right was about £174. Mr Mahadeva refused to pay anything, and Mr Bolton sued for the price.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that Mr Bolton could recover nothing. In deciding whether a contract has been substantially performed, the court looks at the nature of the defects and the proportion between the cost of remedying them and the contract price. Here, the system did not do the job for which it was installed, the house was not properly heated and the fumes made the living room uncomfortable, and the cost of repairs was a substantial proportion of the price. The contract had not been substantially performed, so the entire obligation rule applied and nothing was payable. The case is usually contrasted with Hoenig v Isaacs.
Related cases on discharge and breach
- Avery v Bowden (1855) 5 E & B 714
- Cutter v Powell (1795) 6 Term Rep 320
- Federal Commerce & Navigation Co Ltd v Molena Alpha Inc (The Nanfri) [1979] AC 757
- Fercometal SARL v Mediterranean Shipping Co SA (The Simona) [1989] AC 788
- Frost v Knight (1872) LR 7 Ex 111
- Geys v Société Générale [2012] UKSC 63, [2013] 1 AC 523
- Hochster v De la Tour (1853) 2 E & B 678
- Hoenig v Isaacs [1952] 2 All ER 176
Studying contract law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
