Skip to content

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

Kapoor Traders agrees to fit machinery in Rao's factory by 30 June. Rao's gatekeepers refuse entry to Kapoor's workers for the first ten days, though entry was reasonably needed. The fitting is not finished by 30 June. In another case, Kapoor Traders simply lacks skilled workers. Which statement is correct?

Kapoor is excused for the delay caused by Rao's refusal of entry, but not for its own shortage of skilled workers. Section 67 excuses only non-performance caused by the promisee's neglect or refusal to afford reasonable facilities, so causation decides the extent of the excuse.

  1. AKapoor is excused in both cases because Rao's factory was involved
  2. BKapoor is excused for delay caused by the denied entry, but not for the lack of workers, which is not caused by Rao's refusalCorrect
  3. CKapoor is excused in neither case, since time was fixed
  4. DKapoor is excused only if Rao gives written consent to the delay

Explanation

Section 67 excuses only non-performance caused by the promisee's neglect or refusal to afford reasonable facilities. Denied entry directly caused the delay in the first situation. Lack of skilled workers is the promisor's own default, not caused by Rao, so no excuse arises. No written consent is required.

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