Skip to content

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

Mehta Builders agrees to repair Sharma's house. Sharma refuses to show the builder which portions of the roof need repair, and as a result the roof repairs are not completed by the agreed date. Other repairs are completed on time. What is the legal position?

Mehta Builders is excused only for the roof repairs that went undone because Sharma refused to point out the places needing repair. Section 67 excuses non-performance caused by the neglect, so work unaffected by it must still be performed.

  1. AMehta Builders is excused only for the roof repairs left undone because of Sharma's refusalCorrect
  2. BMehta Builders is excused for the entire contract, including the other repairs
  3. CMehta Builders is liable for all non-performance since it should have inspected the roof itself
  4. DThe contract stands discharged by novation

Explanation

Section 67 excuses the promisor as to any non-performance caused by the promisee's neglect or refusal. The roof work was prevented by Sharma's refusal, so that part is excused. The other repairs were not affected, so the excuse does not extend to them.

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