Hochster v De la Tour
Anticipatory breach: a party can sue immediately when the other side repudiates before performance is due.
Facts
In April 1852 Mr De la Tour engaged Mr Hochster to act as his courier, accompanying him on a tour of Europe for three months starting on 1 June 1852, at a salary of £10 a month. On 11 May, Mr De la Tour wrote to Mr Hochster that he had changed his mind and no longer needed his services. On 22 May, before the date the employment was due to start, Mr Hochster sued for breach of contract. Between then and 1 June he found other employment, starting on 4 July. Mr De la Tour argued that there could be no breach before 1 June, when performance was due.
Legal principle
The court held that Mr Hochster was entitled to sue immediately. Where one party renounces a contract before the time for performance, the other party may accept the renunciation as a breach of the whole contract and sue immediately, without waiting for the time for performance to arrive. Lord Campbell CJ said it was more reasonable to allow the innocent party to consider himself free and seek other employment, rather than to require him to remain idle and ready to perform until the agreed date. This is the doctrine of anticipatory breach.
Related cases on discharge and breach
- Avery v Bowden (1855) 5 E & B 714
- Bolton v Mahadeva [1972] 1 WLR 1009
- 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
- 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.
