Skip to content

CMA Foundation · Fundamentals of Business Laws and Business Communication · Performance of Contracts

Anita contracts to paint Vikram's factory building by 31 March. She delays starting for reasons of her own. In February Vikram also refuses to give her access to the building, and from then painting becomes impossible. Which statement best reflects Section 67?

Anita is excused only for the non-performance actually caused by Vikram's refusal of access. Section 67 ties the excuse to causation, so any delay arising from her own reasons is not covered merely because Vikram later refused facilities.

  1. AAnita is excused only for non-performance caused by Vikram's refusal, not for the earlier delay attributable to her own reasonsCorrect
  2. BAnita is excused for the entire contract because Vikram refused access at some point
  3. CSection 67 does not apply because Anita herself was late
  4. DVikram's refusal makes the contract voidable at Vikram's option

Explanation

Section 67 excuses the promisor as to any non-performance caused by the promisee's neglect or refusal. The word 'caused' limits the excuse to what that refusal actually prevented. Anita's own delay is not covered, so the claim of full excuse is wrong.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Performance of Contracts shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Performance of ContractsFree diagnostic mock

More Performance of Contracts questions