Hoenig v Isaacs
Where a contract has been substantially performed, the party in breach can recover the price less the cost of remedying the defects.
Facts
Mr Hoenig, an interior decorator, agreed to decorate Mr Isaacs's flat and supply furniture, including a wardrobe and a bookcase, for £750, payable as the work progressed. Mr Isaacs paid £400, but when the work was finished he complained that it was faulty. The wardrobe door needed replacing and a bookshelf was too short, and the cost of putting these defects right was about £55. Mr Isaacs moved in and used the furniture, but refused to pay the balance of £350. Mr Hoenig sued for it.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that Mr Hoenig was entitled to the balance of the price, less the £55 needed to remedy the defects. The contract had been substantially performed, because the defects were relatively minor compared with the whole work. Where there has been substantial performance of a lump sum contract, the entire performance of the contract is not a condition of payment: the innocent party must pay the price, but can deduct the cost of remedying the defects or counterclaim for damages. Denning LJ said that, in a lump sum contract of this kind, the question is whether the obligation to complete was an entire obligation or whether payment was due on substantial performance.
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
- Hochster v De la Tour (1853) 2 E & B 678
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.
