Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
4 ANTICIPATORY
BREACH OF CONTRACT
Inainte de momentul performarii contractului,una din parti poate renunta la obligatiile sale,adica
poate sa declare expres ca nu mai intentioneaza sa continue contractual.De aceea ,acea parte
repudiaza contractual in timp ce acesta este inca exeecutoriu,deci este inca neperformat.
2)In Frost v Knight 1872,paratul a promis sa se casatoreasca cu reclamanta imediat dup ace tatal sau
moare.Inainte de acest moment,paratul a rupt acest angajament,o actiune care,la vremea aceea
,indreptatea partea cealalta sa dea in judecata pentru incalcarea promisiunii.Curtea a hotarat ca fata
era indreptatita sa dea in judecatat imediat pentru daune;ea nu trebuia sa astepte pana cand tatal
paratului murea.
Capacitatea de a da in judecata pentru incalcarea anticipate poate sa fie in beneficiul partii daunate
deoarece ,daca ea asteapta pana la momentul performarii,poate surveni o situatie care sa duca la
eliberarea celeilalte parti de obligatiile sale.De exemplu,pot exista schimbari radicale in
circumstantele care pot sa ingaduie celeilalte parti sa se descarce de contract prin frustratie.
Un astfel de caz a fost Avery v Bowden 1885,in care Bowden a fost de accord sa incarce un vas cu
grau,intr-o perioada de 45 de zile.Inainte ca aceasta perioada de timp sa se scurga,el a refuzat sa
faca cee ace a promis.In loc sa-l dea in judecata imediat pentru incalcare anticipate,Avery a stat in
port sperand ca Bowden se va razgandi si va performa contractual in 45 de zile asa cum fusese de
accord initial.Intre timp(adica intre incalcarea anticipate si scurgerea celor 45 de zile) a izbucnit
Razboiul Crimeiii ,iar performarea contractului devenise ilegala,insemnand comert cu inamicul pet
imp de razboi.Contractul a fost de aceea descarcat prin frustrare.Avery a actionat in judecata la
sfarsitul celor 45 de zile.
Curtea a hotarat ca Bowden nu avea nicio responsabilitate fata de Avery pentru incalcare anticipate
a contractului deoarece contractual fusese descarcat prin frustratie,datorita evenimentului
beligerant.
9.2.5 PROBLEME LEGATE DE
INCALCAREA ANTICIPATORIE
a)Repudierea ilicita/cauzatoare de daune(NM?)
c)Comunicarea deciziei
In Freeth v Barr 1874 ,curtea a statuat:’’nu numai simplul refuz sau omisiune a
unuia care contracteaza promisiunea de a face ceva ce trebuie sa faca ,poate sa constituie
justificare a repudierii contractului;trebuie sa existe un refuz absolut de a indeplini partea sa
din contract’’.
Daca partea inocenta greseste in aceasta privinta,ea poate fi tinuta a fi incalcat ea insasi
contractual,asa cum a fost cazul in The Molena Alpha 1979
Un caraus avusese permisiunea sa semneze bills of ladding,statuand ca cargoul fusese
pregatit,dar in timpul unei dispute,proprietarii vasului ii retrasese autoritatea.Proprietarii
vasului crezusera ca erau indreptatiti sa faca aceasta schimbare dar,in realitate,nu acesta
era cazul.Rezultatul acestei actiuni a proprietarilor vasului a fost aceea ca carausii nu erau
capabili sa opereze vasul si acestia au actionat in justitie pentru a reclama daune
substantiale pentru repudiere ilicita/daunatoare.Camera Lorzilor le-a aprobat cererea.
Totusi,doar cu o majoritate de 3 la 2,Lorzimile lor au ajuns la o decizie diferita in cazul
complicat Woodar Investment v Wimpey 1980,inducand confuzie in
aceasta arie.Astfel,intr-un contract de cumparare imobiliara/pamant,LUI Wimpey I se
permitea sa rescizioneze contractual daca pamantul devenea subiect al unei cumparari
obligatorii prin ordin,inainte de completion.In fapt,la data la care contractual era
semnat,astfel de procedura fusese deja pus in miscare.
Piata se contractase,preturile pamanturilor/imobilelor scazusera,iar Wimpey dorise sa scape
de contract.Compania a fost consiliata de catre avocatii sai sa incerce sa renegocieze
acordul sau cu Woodar,dar ca trebuia sa rescizioneze contractual daca acesta se dovedea a
fi imposibil.Aceasta a doua varianta a fost aleasa,Whimpey reclamand ca a urmat acest pas
datorita actiunii autoritatii publice privind aceasta vanzare obligatorie,Woodar,pe de alta
parte a reclamat ca actiunea lui Whimpey s-a ridicat la valoarea unei repudieri ilicite a
contractului si a urmarit sa obtina despagubiri pentru incalcare.
Camera Lorzilor a hotarat ca Whimpey a intreprins o actiune care nu se ridica la valoarea
unei repudieri ilicite.Lordul Wilberforce a statuat:’’departe de a repudia
contractual,whimpey se bazase pe el si a invocate una din prevederile sale conform careia
fiecare parte isi daduse consimtamantul.Si fara sa invoce ca aceste prevederi erau
totalmente abusive sau fara buna credinta,faptul ca s-a dovedit dupa lege ca era gresit nu se
putea transforma intr-o repudiere’’.Doi dintre Lorzi nu au fost de accord,gasind ca nu era
deosebire intre aceasta si The Molena Alpha.Opinia academica variaza,dar cativa autori
prefer abordarea din The Molena Alpha si cred ca decizia din Wooden trebuie limitata la
faptele sale particulare(restransa)
Entertainment
Robbie loses court fight
Former Take That singer Robbie Williams could face a £1m bill after losing an appeal in his High
Court battle against former manager Nigel Martin-Smith.
Lords Justices Beldam, Roch and Mummery had been urged by Mr Williams' lawyers to overturn a
previous High Court ruling that he must pay Mr Martin-Smith thousands of pounds in commission in a
contract dispute.
The entertainer had claimed Mr Martin-Smith failed in his duty as a manager by siding with
bandmates Gary Barlow, Jason Orange, Mark Owen and Howard Donald when they fell out in 1995.
But Mr Martin-Smith claimed the singer owed him commission under the terms of a management
agreement signed by him and the other members of Take That in 1990.
In November 1997, Mr Justice Ferris ruled Robbie Williams had been in breach of the agreement and
threw out his claim that Mr Martin-Smith was not entitled to commission.
Mr Williams was told to pay a one-off sum of £90,000 in commission to Mr Martin-Smith, plus a share
of his royalties until the year 2006.
The judges dismissed the appeal, calling the original decision "the right result".
Robbie Williams left the group in July 1995, convinced he was being
punished for enjoying a hedonistic lifestyle.
He offered to stay until the group had completed planned tours, but after
being told he had to quit immediately or stay with the group, he decided to
leave straight away. He did not give Mr Martin-Smith the required six
months' notice of his departure.
He said: "It was in the best interests of all of them that there should be an
Robbie Williams at the 1999 Brit
Awards
immediate resolution of the disagreements within the group.
"The advice was that the defendant should be given the option of staying or
going straight away. It was a reasonable option. The plaintiff did not abandon the defendant, who, in
his own interests, chose to leave the group immediately."
Robbie Williams has already paid more than £100,000 to his former
manager, but now he must pay the cost of the original case and the appeal
- expected to be around £350,000. Final costs could total around £1m.
His management company IE Music said in a statement that the two-year battle with Mr Martin-Smith
was now "finished".
It added: "Robbie is concentrating on the hugely successful career he has built since his split with
Nigel Martin-Smith and has left his lawyers to deal with this tedious case."
Robbie Williams[edit]
Robbie Williams left Take That in 1995 under a strict performance and confidentiality agreement.
In 1997, Martin-Smith sued Williams for unpaid commission in relation to a Take That
management contract. Williams responded by saying that Martin-Smith had been in breach of his
fiduciary duties as the group's manager. The court found in Martin-Smith's favour and determined
that Williams had indeed violated the terms of the contract. Williams appealed against the
decision but lost again.[5]
The feud between the pair resurfaced when Williams' biography written by the journalist Chris
Heath, Feel: Robbie Williams was published in 2004.[6] Williams described how Martin-Smith
allegedly destroyed his confidence, and did not hide his hatred for Martin-Smith whom he calls
"the spawn of Satan" claiming that the manager told people he was gay. He noted that: "I can
say something nice about every single member of Take That. But when it comes to Nigel Martin-
Smith....I want to rip his uterus out."[7]
In response, Martin-Smith blamed Williams' inability to deal with his sexuality as the major cause
of the singer's insecurity and his drug and alcohol issues, and stated: "It's very sad that Robbie
has turned out like he has. He doesn't seem at all happy. He has been suppressed and the
ramifications of that are now beginning to show. He looks a mess, he looks like a lost unhappy
individual. It's very telling that none of his relationships with women have lasted. He is now dating
another actress in LA. It won't last. It's all for show. Deep down he is gay. Robbie and I were
completely comfortable with each other. He was the more dominant one and knew what he
wanted. That's not the behaviour of a man who is experimenting for fun. It was for real." [8]
On Williams' 2006 album Rudebox, Williams originally detailed in the track "The 90s" about how
he fantasised about gouging out Martin-Smith's eyes out during his time with Take That. The
lyrics prompted Martin-Smith to instigate legal action against Williams and EMI prior to the
album's release. EMI instructed Williams to rewrite the song and remove the offending lyrics. [9]
[10]
However, since promotional copies of the album had already been dispatched to the media
and the lyrics had been made public knowledge, Martin-Smith proceeded with his lawsuit against
Williams and EMI and won £300,000 in the High Court for defamation of character. Williams and
EMI were also forced to issue a public apology to Martin-Smith. [11]
In cazul Clea Shipping Corporation v Bulk Oil International Ltd 1984,Lordul Lloyd LJ a considerat
limitarile care au fost facute declaratiei de mai sus.Lordul Reid declarase de asemenea:
‘’..daca poate fi aratat ca persoana nu are interes legitim,financiar sau de alta natura,in performarea
contractului mai degraba decat sa ceara daune,el trebuie sa nu fie lasat sa ‘’saddle’’ pe cealalata
parte cu o greudatate suplimentara si cu niciunbeneficiu pentru sine..’’
Termenii acordului de charter statua ca vasul in chestiune trebuia sa fie gata sa fie incarcat pana in 9
Iulie.Inainte de aceasta data,carausii au incercat,in mod gresit,sa repudieze contractual.Proprietarul
vasului a refuzat sa recunoasca aceasta dar de asemenea a omis sa-si indeplineasca propriile obligatii
sis a aiba vasul pregatit la data ceruta.
Lorzimile lor au confirmat ca atunci cand o parte repudiaza necuvenit un contract,partea inocenta
are voie sa decida daca sa accepte si sa dea in judecata pentru pagube sau sa decida in loc de
aceasta daca sa afirme contractual.Daca decide a doua variant,totusi,el este obligat sa isi vada de
obligatiile proprii si,daca nu o face,atunci aceasta va ingadui celelilalte parti sa scape de
responsabilitatea sa pentru repudiere ilicita/wrongful.
Intreaga chestiune a fost luata in considerare din nou,in cazul Ministry of Sound(Ireland)Ltd v Worl
Line Ltd 2003.Aici Inalta Curte a aplicat cazul White & Carter dar a dat o interpretare ingusta
criteriului Lordului Reid.Ei au respins de asemenea critica care fusese facuta in cazul White &Carter.
c)Comunicarea deciziei
Inainte sa ne indepartam de aceasta arie dificila ,trebuie sa ne punem intrebarea daca este necesar
ca partea inocenta sa comunice expres faptul ca intentioneaza sa accepte repudierea sau daca
aceasta informative poate fi transmisa in alte feluri.
Camera Lorzilor a clarificat aceasta dificultate in cazul Vitol SA v Norelf Ltd 1998,cand au fost
clarificate urmatoarele puncte:
Atunci cand una din parti repudiaza un contract,partea daunata are alegerea de a accepta
repudierea sau de a afirma contractual
*Actul acceptarii repudierii nu necesita o forma particulara:o comunicare nu trebuie facuta
intr-un limbaj specific de acceptare.Este sufficient ca comunicarea sau conduit clara si
neechivoca sa duca partea repudiatorie la indiciul ca partea daunata trateaza contractual ca
fiind la sfarsit.
Partea daunata nu trebuie sa notifice,personal sau prin agent,partea repudiatorie cu privire
la alegerea sa de a trata contractual ca fiind ajuns la sfarsit.Este sufficient ca faptul alegerii sa
vina in atentia partii repudiatorii,de exemplu prin notificarea unui broker neautorizat sau un
intermediar,care va fi suficienta
Un exemplu interesant de aplicare a cazului White & Carter,de mai sus(si un numar de alte }
chestiuni) il constituie cazul E-Nick Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.]
Aplicantul ,o companie de servicii IT(E) a aplicat pentru o judecata sumara a reclamatiei sale
impotriva apelatului G-un department guvernamental,pentru neplata facturilor.E intrase in contract
in Aprilie 2009 cu G pentru a furniza servicii de consultant IT.Clauza 2.1 din contract statua ca G se
angajeaza sa cumpere un minim de 500 de zile de consultant de la E pe an bazate pe cererea
aferenta unui proiect si ca zile aditionale vor fi cerute odata ce zilele cumparate se vor sfarsi.Rata
contractului era de nu mai putin de 850 de lire pe zi.
Disputa consta in neplata facturilor lui E din Mai pana in Octombrie 2011,de 780.000 lire inclusive
VAT.G a inaintat sustinerea ca clauza 2.1 insemna ca daca cererea proiectului sau nu necesita 500 de
zile de consultant,atunci nu exista nicio obligatie de a cumpara cele 500 de zile de la E.E a raspuns ca
1)contractual dadea de inteles ca G era obligat sa cumpere cel putin 500 de zile de consultant in
fiecare an.2)Constructia lui E era corecta.Obligatia de a cumpara si plati pentru consultant bazata pe
500 de zile pe an insemna ca intr-o jumatate de an,un minim de 500 de zile pe an injumatatit era
cerut sa fie cumparat si platit.Dat fiind scopul contractului,care era sa asigure disponibilitatea lui E
pentru a oferi astfel de servicii,sugestia ca nicio suma nu trebuia platita in prima jumatate a anului
era necomerciala.Aceasta concluzie a fost urmata si in cazul Antaios Compania Naviera SA v Salen
Rederierna AB(The Antaios) 1985 3)Era clar ca dovada ca E a continuat sa fie disponibila pana la
terminarea contractului si ca era indreptatita sa faca aceasta.Cazul White & Carter 9Councils) Ltd v
McGregor 1962 a fost urmat.cazul era despre debit si nu pentru o penalitate inzestrabila cu forta
juridical.Clauzele era dpdv commercial justificabile,nu insemnau vreo opresiune,erau negociate si
agreate in mod liber de parti cu putere de negociere comparabile 4)VAT-ul nu era platibil in adaos la
facturile lui E.Clauza 3.7 din contract stabilea ca era datoria lui E fata de Revenue VAT-ul,si nu a lui
G,astfel ca 850 de lire includea si VAT-ul. 5)Eroarea din facturi ce arata ca VAT-ul era platibil nu
dezangaja Actul Late Payment of Commercial Debts(Interest) 1998.Cazul Ruttle Plant Hire Ltd v
Secretary of State for Environment ,Food and Rural Affairs 2009 a fost urmat.Facturile erau valide
dar nu includeau sume extra de VAT,care nu era datorat.Nu a existat o reducere a dobanzii ,conform
s 5(4) a Actului.Judecata sumara a fost in favoarea lui E pentru suma cuvenita exclusive VAT.