Sumpter v Hedges
A party who abandons an entire contract part way through cannot recover payment for the work done unless the other party freely accepts it.
Facts
Mr Sumpter, a builder, agreed to build two houses and stables on Mr Hedges's land for a lump sum of £565. After doing work worth about £333, he ran out of money and abandoned the work. Mr Hedges completed the buildings himself, using some materials that Mr Sumpter had left on the site. Mr Sumpter sued for the value of the work done and the materials used.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that Mr Sumpter could recover the value of the materials that Mr Hedges had used, but nothing for the work done. The contract was for a lump sum payable on completion, and Mr Sumpter had abandoned it. He could recover on a quantum meruit for the work only if Mr Hedges had freely accepted the benefit of it, in circumstances from which a new contract to pay could be inferred. Mr Hedges had no real choice but to accept the partly built buildings on his own land, so taking the benefit of them was not acceptance of the partial performance. Using the loose materials, on the other hand, was a free choice.
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.
