Poussard v Spiers and Pond
Breach of a condition that goes to the root of the contract entitles the innocent party to terminate.
Facts
Madame Poussard was engaged by Spiers and Pond to play the leading role in a new French opera at the Criterion Theatre in London for three months, starting on the opening night. Shortly before the opening, she fell ill and could not perform at the first performances. The producers engaged a replacement singer, who insisted on being engaged for the whole run. When Madame Poussard recovered about a week later, the producers refused to let her take up the part, and she sued for breach of contract.
Legal principle
The court held that the producers were entitled to treat the contract as discharged. Madame Poussard's failure to appear on the opening night and the first performances went to the root of the contract, because the opening of a new production was of great importance and the producers could not reasonably have been expected to engage a substitute only for the period of her absence. Her obligation to perform from the start was therefore a condition, the breach of which entitled the producers to terminate. The case is usually contrasted with Bettini v Gye.
Related cases on terms of the contract
- Arnold v Britton [2015] UKSC 36, [2015] AC 1619
- Barton v Morris [2023] UKSC 3, [2023] AC 684
- Bettini v Gye (1876) 1 QBD 183
- Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd [2015] UKSC 17, [2015] 1 WLR 1661
- Bunge Corp v Tradax Export SA [1981] 1 WLR 711
- Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd [2009] UKHL 38, [2009] 1 AC 1101
- Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd [1965] 1 WLR 623
- Hongkong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd [1962] 2 QB 26
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.
