ABSTRACT
This paper considers the law on termination ‘for’ breach of contract. It makes two arguments. First, it claims (with Diplock LJ’s support) that a contractor’s power to cancel a contract after certain kinds of breach is justified by reasons unconnected with the fact there was a breach: we should talk of termination after, not for, breach. Second, it claims (contra Lord Diplock) that the responsibility to pay compensatory damages following termination of the contract is not ‘just as much’ a contractual obligation as the primary obligation out of which it arises.
Wilmot-Smith, Frederick, Termination After Breach (April 2018). Law Quarterly Review 2018, 134 (April), 307-325.
First posted 2019-11-26 13:35:46
Leave a Reply