The Student Room Group

Implied Terms Problem Question - Rep for help

I have been given an implied terms problem question surrounding the transfer of a fictional footballer between two sides.

A clause is attached that when he scores 20 goals a further payment of £200,000 is made to the selling club.

I have completed the first problem which is what happens if he is sold before he has reasonable chance to scored the goals by citing Brighton v Manchester United.

The second problem is a bit more complicated. What happens if they player scores 18 goals then suffers a career ending injury. Should the selling club be entitled to claim a pro rata payment of £180,000 as it was a virtual certainty that he would have gone on to score the goals? Basically I think that they want me to explore what the resolution is if a contract becomes impossible. Is this Taylor V Caldwell (1863) in which it was found that contracts can be discharged by frustration in the event that a person or property essential for performance was harmed or destroyed?

Any help would be much appreciated and will get rep as soon as I can award it tomorrow.
Reply 1
While Taylor v. Caldwell (1863) is the classic example of a frustrated contract, it can be distinguished from the current scenio: that case concerned the destruction of property; the current case concerns neither destruction nor property (a person cannot be property).

Certain 'personal' contracts (including contracts of employment) are discharged by the death of either party - Cutter v. Powell (1795). Same rules apply where a person is permanently incapacitated from performing such a contract. A couple of examples:
Jackson v. Union Marine Insurance Co Ltd (1874) - a contract to write a book would be frustrated by the supervening insanity of the author.
Condor v. The Barron Knights Ltd (1966) - a contract to render services would be frustrated if continued performance involved a serious risk to the health of the person who agreed to render them.
A contract may also be frustrated where it is the capacity of the party to receive performance that is affected by the supervening event. For example, where a person who had booked a course of dancing lessons was so seriously injured that he could not dance - Parker v. Arthur Murray Inc (1973).

Right, it's 1:30am, I'm tired and I still have stuff to do, so if you want a hand with the effects of frustration, you'll have to wait till tomorrow! Hope this points you in the right direction! :smile:
Reply 2
Either someone really knows their stuff or has a very good set of notes somewhere.

You will get rep when the 24hr thing expires!

Thanks


Mark
Reply 3
I'm not familiar with Brighton v. Manchester Utd. Just out of interest, what happens in it and what rule did it lay down? Also, do you have the citation?
Reply 4
muncrun
While Taylor v. Caldwell (1863) is the classic example of a frustrated contract ...


I think frustration is most unlikely in this case. Remember that frustration occurs only in quite extreme circumstances: something has to go to the very root of the contract. The root of your contract is almost certainly the transfer of a player; it is very difficult to imagine that this contract could be frustrated by an inability to complete a subsidiary term.
Reply 5
muncrun
I'm not familiar with Brighton v. Manchester Utd. Just out of interest, what happens in it and what rule did it lay down? Also, do you have the citation?


Just type it into Lexisnexis and it should come up.

Brighton sold player to Man U whith a clause that if they player scored over 20 goals they would recieve extra payment. The player played about 2 games and was sold.

It was claimed that they player was not offered suitable opportunity to scored the goals by implied term that he would actually play a reasonable number of matches. The court found in favour of Brighton and they were awarded some compensation.
Reply 6
Mark_KK
I have completed the first problem which is what happens if he is sold before he has reasonable chance to scored the goals by citing Brighton v Manchester United.


Be very careful about answering a problem like this by citing a case. Implication of terms is clearly a matter of fact, and no case can govern such a situation. Whilst it can demonstrate a principle, you should be discussing the relevant factors from first principles.