9.2.

2 DISCHARGE BY AGREEMENT
9.2.2.1 Definitie
9.2.2.2 Descarcarea unilaterala de
contract
9.2.2.3 Descarcarea bilaterala de
contract
9.2.2.4 Amanarea/Waiver
9.2.2.1 Definitie
-Partile unui contract pot decide
ulterior sa nu indeplineasca
contractual,aceasta insemnand sa se
descarce de contract prin
accord.Aceasta ,uneori,se exprima
prin :’’ceea ce a fost creat prin accord
poate fi stins prin accord
-Astfel de acorduri pot fi prin
*descare unilaterala(in care numai o
persoana are drepturi de renuntare)
*descarcare bilaterala(in care ambele
parti au dreptul de a renunta)Aceasta
poate sa apara atunci cand contractual
este in intregime sau partial
executoriu,adica in cazurile in care
niciuna din parti nu si-a indeplinit in
intregime obligatiile.
9.2.2.2 Descarcarea unilaterala de
contract
Asa cum s-a spus,in aceasta situatie numai una dintre parti are drepturi de renuntare,si
anume acea parte care si-a indeplinit in intregime partea sa din accord,ea nemaifiind
obligata contractual,dar inca avand dreptul de a oblige pe celalat sa-si indeplineasca
prestatia.
Un exemplu ar fi situatia in care una din parti a livrat bunuri alteia,insa descopera apoi ca
cealalta parte nu mai avea nevoie de ele.In unele situatii foarte limitate,furnizorul poate fi
de accord ca celalalt sa nu mai fie nevoit sa plateasca.Pentru ca noua promisiune sa fie
obligatory,doctrina acordului si consideratiei trrebuie sa fie satisfacuta.Trebuie aratat ca
partile sunt in accord sa nu continue contractual,(acordul),si ca sa faca promisiunea
inzestrabila cu forta juridical,primitorul trebuie sa fi furnizat o oarecare forma a
consideratiei(satisfactia).Daca ne gandim la Cap. 3 si la discutia noastra despre
consideratie,aceasta inseamna de fapt ca partile incheie un alt contract.Acesta ,ca toate
contractile,trebuie sa satisfaca cerintele generale(intentia,oferta,acceptarea,consideratia si
termenii) pentru a fi inzestrabil cu forta juridica.
9.2.2.3 Descarcarea bilaterala de
contract
Un accord al partilor de a stinge drepturile si obligatiile care au fost deja
create este in sine un nou contract obligational,cu conditia ca noul accord
sa fie creat prin deed sau sprijinit de consideratie.Ultima variant va fi
satisfacuta de catre acordul fiecarei parti de a renunta la dreptul de a
inzestra cu forta juridical contractual original.Ceea ce trebuie luat in
considerare este metoda prin care descarcarea de contract este
efectuata.Daca contractual original a fost unul verbal,atunci descarcarea
poate fi efectuata in orice fel.Daca contractual original a necesitat forma
scrisa,ca garantia saucontractul de vanzare sau alta dispozitie asupra
pamantului/imobilului,chestiunea care se pune este aceea daca
descarcarea trebuie de asemenea sa fie in scris,aceasta depinzand de
intinderea obligatiilor originale care se se schimba-vz.cazul Morris v Baron
1918.( MOR R IS V BAR ON AND CO : HL 191 8
  March 14, 2019    admin    Off  C ontract ,  Land ,

References: [1918] AC 1
Coram: Lord Dunedin, Lord Parmoor
Ratio: The House drew a distinction between a variation of a contract
required to be evidenced in writing, and the rescission (or discharge) of such
a contract. The former was itself required to be evidenced in writing; the
latter was not.
Lord Dunedin said: ‘The criterion is in the question whether what is intended
to be effected by the second contract is rescission or variation.’
Lord Parmoor said that the determining factor on which the appeal depended
was the intention of the parties at the time when the second agreement was
made.
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

 Approved – Williams v Moss Empires Ltd ChD ([1915] 3 KB 242)

The court considered what was necessary to achieve a variation of a
contract. Shearman J: ‘The principle . . is that where there is alleged to
have been a variation of a written contract by a new parol contract,
which incorporates some of the terms . .

(This list may be incomplete)

This case is cited by:

 Applied – McCausland and Another v Duncan Lawrie Ltd and

Another CA (Times 18-Jun-96, Gazette 10-Jul-96, [1996] 4 All ER 995,
[1997] 1 WLR 38)
The parties entered into a written contract for the sale of land which, in
error, provided for completion on a Sunday. The parties varied the date
 to the Friday but did not execute a new contract which would comply
with section 2(1) of the 1989 Act. . .
 Cited – Kilcarne Holdings Ltd v Targetfollow (Birmingham) Ltd,
Targetfollow Group Ltd ChD (Bailii, [2004] EWHC 2547 (Ch), (2005) 2
PandCR 8)
The defendant entered into an agreement for lease, incurring
substantial obligations. When it could not meet them it sought
assistance from the claimant, who now claimed to have an interest in a
joint venture. The draft documentation originally . .
 Adopted – British and Beningtons Ltd v North Western Cachar Tea Co
Ltd HL ([1923] AC 48, [1922] All ER 224)
The House looked at the effect of rescission of a contract: ‘It was,
however, argued before your Lordships that . . the old contracts were
discharged because a varied contract is not the old contract, and as
you cannot have a new and varied contract . .
 Cited – Jagdeo Sookraj v Buddhu Samaroo PC (Bailii, [2004] UKPC
50, PC)
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) Each party claimed to have entered into a
contract to purchase the same land. It was contended that one
contract had been rescinded and replaced by another. The issue was
whether this . .
 Cited – United Dominions Corporation (Jamaica) Ltd v Shoucair PC
([1969] 1 AC 340)
(Jamaica) A moneylending law required, for the enforceability of a loan
bearing interest at more than ten per cent, a written memorandum
containing all the terms of the loan with the borrower’s signature. A
bank lent money at nine per cent secured . .)

In Morris v Baron & Co [1918] AC 1, Morris agreed to sell Baron &

Company 500 pieces of blue serge on terms set out in the written contract
(thus complying with the writing requirements of section 4 of the Sale of
Goods Act 1893 (UK)) Difficulties arose, the parties sued one another and,
eventually, their actions were compromised by an oral agreement under
which Baron & Company was to receive compensation for defective
deliveries already made, was to be free to accept the remaining deliveries
at its discretion and was to be permitted time to pay outstanding amounts
then due. The question before the House of Lords was whether either of
the agreements was enforceable: Graw S, An Introduction to the Law of
Contract (1998), 3rd Ed, Lawbook Company Information Services, North
Ryde, pg 322 - 323.

It was held in this case that the substitute agreement, being totally
inconsistent with the original contract, impliedly abrogated it. The original
contract had, therefore, been discharged and was no longer enforceable.
The new contract, though required to be in writing, was not in writing and,
accordingly, was also unenforceable. Neither agreement could be
enforced: Graw S, An Introduction to the Law of Contract (1998), 3rd Ed,
Lawbook Company Information Services, North Ryde, pg 322 - 323.

However, the situation is quite different where the original contract and
the new contract are essentially the same except for the inclusion in the
new contract of terms which alter the operation of the original contract in
a small way. In these circumstances, the fresh terms in the new contract
work to supplement the unchanged provisions of the original contract
which remain on foot.

The critical question is whether what has been agreed is “entirely

inconsistent” with the first contract or goes to “the very root” of the first
contract so as to discharge it altogether; or, whether there has been a
variation that qualifies or alters some of the provisions of the first
contract but otherwise leaves the rest of it on foot. As Lord Sumner said
in British & Beningtons Ltd v North West Cachar Tea Co Ltd  [1923] AC 48,
what is central:

                      Is whether the common intention of the parties…was to

“abrogate”, “rescind”, “supersede” or “extinguish” the old contracts by a
“substitution” of a “completely new” and “self contained” or “self
subsisting” agreement, “containing as an entirety the old terms, together
with and as modified by the new terms incorporated”.    )

ASTFEL:

*daca intregul contract original si scris este stins si niciun nou accord nu
a fost convenit,atunci descarcarea de accord initial poate fi facuta in
orice forma(NM??)

*daca contractual original este doar modificat intr-un anume fel,atunci

noul accord trebuie facut in aceeasi forma ca si acordul original.Daca
nu,acesta va fi efficient si contractual original va dainui

*in ultimul rand,pot exista ocazii cand acordul vechi este complet stins
prin accord si noi termini sa fie introdusi in locul celor originali.Daca
exista un accord nou in sine,atunci,cu modificarile de rigoare,acesta
trebuie de asemenea sa fie in aceeasi forma ca si contractual original
pentru a fi inzestrabil cu forta juridical.Contractul vechi va
fi,insa,desarcat,in orice forma.

(DE CONTINUAT!)
9.2.2.3 Descarcarea bilaterala de
contract
9.2.2.4 Amanarea/Waiver