Contract Law help?

Any law students that can help, i would really appreciate it.
if you have an agreement with someone... say a tenancy agreement with your landlord... and the contract states you cannot make any changes to the property without their permission.
However you go ahead and make these changes therefor breaching your contract with the landlord, but your personal belongings get damaged due to the landlords negligence.
Can you still sue for negligence even though your originally broke the contract you had or would any claim you make be void because you broke the contract?

Thanks for any help :smile:

Reply 1

LexiswasmyNexis

11

Not sure anybody can give a comprehensive answer until we know the following:

What degree of change are we talking about? Painting walls or building extensions?!

How did L's negligence cause the damage?

To what extent (if at all) was the damage caused by the unauthorised changes?

Does the contract state what is to happen if changes are made?

Do you consider the clause about changes to be sufficiently central to the contract? (Ie is the breach a breach if term or warranty)?

Reply 2

Forum User

19

If you have a claim in tort against the landlord then the fact that you broke a contract with the landlord is (almost certainly) going to be irrelevant. Your question is not much different to saying, "suppose I cancel the direct debit on my mobile phone contract, can I sue Vodafone if they send an employee to break my legs when I'm walking down the street?" Of course you can, because "he breached a contract" isn't a valid defence to a tortious claim.

That's not to say that the landlord might not have some other defence, since you barely provided any facts, but the mere fact of a breach of contract is not likely to be one.

Reply 3

Enoxial

16

You are confusing two different things..
Contract and Agreement are two different things and so is Negligence..

Firstly, to sue some one for Negligence it is not necessary for a Contractual Relation to exist so I think you can sue for Negligence.
Secondly, I think Contract and Agreement are two different things, the only difference is that An Agreement in not enforceable by law but I think a "Tenancy Agreement" is actually a Contract so I think you have breached it but the remedies are not harsh.

You can sue him for Negligance and he can sue you for Breach but I think Negligance has more harsh punishment because it could be classed as a Criminal Offense..

Thats according to English Law although you should confirm it.

Reply 4

LexiswasmyNexis

11

To be clear: I agree that these are two separate issues.

My questions were designed to establish the 'severity' of each breach and to determine whether there is any causation between the breaching act and the purported negligence.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 5

Enoxial

16

Let me summarize:

Breach of contract:
-Can sue
-Damages awarded to Landlord are very less(Cost of Cure)

Negligence:
-Can sue
-Damages awarded to you are way more as compared to Breach

So I think its worth sueing the Landlord for Negligence although the court will analyse the Negligence claim like this:
Q1: Did he owe Duty of care?
Q2: If yes, did he not fulfill the Duty of care?
Q3: If yes, would the incident be prevented if the Landlord fulfill the Duty of care?

Reply 6

Samantha S S

OP

Original post by Forum User

If you have a claim in tort against the landlord then the fact that you broke a contract with the landlord is (almost certainly) going to be irrelevant. Your question is not much different to saying, "suppose I cancel the direct debit on my mobile phone contract, can I sue Vodafone if they send an employee to break my legs when I'm walking down the street?" Of course you can, because "he breached a contract" isn't a valid defence to a tortious claim.

That's not to say that the landlord might not have some other defence, since you barely provided any facts, but the mere fact of a breach of contract is not likely to be one.

Thanks for your help everyone, i understand now that it is two separate issues i am dealing with... however when suing under negligence do i not have a duty to protect my own property? (say for example by taking out contents insurance?)

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 7

LexiswasmyNexis

11

You have no duty to insure. You may however find the quantum reduced to take account of any contributory negligence.

Since you are keeping the material facts to yourself, we can't really help determine how likely this is.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 8

LexiswasmyNexis

11

Although actually the contract may require you to insure (now that I think about it).

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 9

Forum User

19

Original post by Samantha S S

Thanks for your help everyone, i understand now that it is two separate issues i am dealing with... however when suing under negligence do i not have a duty to protect my own property? (say for example by taking out contents insurance?)

No, there's no duty to take out contents insurance.

I wouldn't get too excited by talking about suing until you have at least contacted the CAB or similar and received some specific legal advice. It may not be worth your time even if it could be resolved in small claims court. Seems likely unless he damaged your prize Ferrari that this could be resolved between you and your landlord, particularly if you can agree to offset the damage he caused against whatever damage you caused to his property.

Reply 10

LexiswasmyNexis

11

Sorry I had interpreted this as a theoretical discussion.

As stated above, get some actual advice before you set off armed with our musings (particularly as we have no idea of the facts).

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 11

jacketpotato

20

Yes, you can still sue for negligence. The fact that a contract has been breached does not mean it ceases to operate. However, the landlord may attempt to counterclaim for any damages he is due because of the tenant's breach of contract.

Reply 12

Abdulb23

Hi I was wondering if anyone could give me some guidance on this question/ scenario.

Haks Wines (“Haks”) is a London based company supplying exclusive wines. It sources and supplies the finest wines from the Loire Valley and Burgundy regions of France. On 25 January 2009, Haks entered into a contract with Yuppie Ltd (“Yuppie”), a company with a number of exclusive high-end bars.The contract stipulates that “Haks shall supply Yuppie with vintage Silex wines (2000) for a period of 12 months with the option of a further six months at the discretion of Yuppie”. Under the terms of the contract Haks is to deliver 4 instalments over 12 months with payment to be made 30 days after delivery. Haks delivered the first instalment and no payment was received within the 30 days stipulated by the contract.Yuppie was apologetic for the non-payment and said they were having some minor problems. They requested that Haks should make the second delivery and would pay for the two instalments within 30 days of the second delivery. After the second delivery, Yuppie did not settle the invoice within the stipulated 30 days but convinced Haks to make the third delivery. Haks agreed to the request on the basis that it would like to build a good business relationship with Yuppie because of the potential of Yuppie’s target market.Upon dispatch of the third delivery but before delivery was made, Haks found out that Yuppie had serious financial problems and the business “could go under”.Haks has contacted your Firm through Chris its Managing Director. Chris is anxious about Yuppie’s failure to make payments under the contract. He tells you that his company will suffer a loss of £1.5 million as a result of Yuppie’s breach. A further £500,000 loss will be suffered if they do not pay the French winemaker and the grapes grower in the next two months. Advise Haks

Contract Law help?

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you