A contract is a legal document that binds all the parties to perform as it is enforceable by law. If any of party refuses to perform his obligation on his part, then it is known as Breach of the contract. As the contract is entered into for the benefit of both the parties. So the breach of the contract results in damage or loss on the other party. So the Remedies for breach of contract are provided. These remedies are as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
RESCISSION OR\nCANCELLATION OF THE CONTRACT<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n This remedy is to cancel the contract between the parties.\nWhen one of the parties to contract does not perform the obligations of his\npart, then the other party may rescind the contract. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Section 39 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWhen a party to a contract has refused to perform his\npromise in its entirety, the promise may put an end to the contract.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to section\n64 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWhen the party treats the contract as rescinded, he also\nmakes himself liable to restore any benefits he has received under the contract\nto party from whom such benefits were received.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Section\n75 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWhere the party rightfully rescinded the contract, he is\nentitled to compensation for damages suffered due to the breach of the\ncontract.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n CASE: RASH BEHARI\nSHAHA VS. NRITTYA GOPAL NUNDY (1906)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A agreed to purchase from B 300 tons of sugar under two\ncontracts delivered on different dates. A failed to make delivery as per the\nfirst contract. B claimed to rescind both the contracts. Held, that as there\nwas no refusal on the part of the A to perform his promise in its entirety; B\nwas not entitled to rescind the contract.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Example:<\/strong> X, an\nadvocate promises to plead Y\u2019s case in the court if Y pays him Rs. 2,000 before\nthe date of the hearing. Y has not paid Rs. 2,000 before the date of the\nhearing. So X can rescind the contract as Y has not performed the obligation of\nhis part. So X has every right to refuse to plead for Y\u2019s case in the court of\nthe law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Situations in which\nthis remedy is available:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Cases in which this remedy is not available:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n SUIT FOR QUANTUM\nMERUIT<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2018Quantum Meruit\u2019 <\/strong>means\n\u2018As much as earned\u2019 <\/strong>or \u2018In proportion to work done\u2019.<\/strong> This\nremedy is available if one party has performed the part of the contract and it\nis discharged due to the default of the other party. This remedy can be claimed\nwithout claiming for damages or along with claim for damages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Circumstances in\nwhich party may claim payment on Quantum Meruit:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n CASE: PLANCHE VS.\nCOLBURN (1831)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n P was engaged by C to write a book to be published in\ninstalments in a weekly magazine. After publication of three instalments, the\nmagazine was abandoned. Held, P could recover on quantum meruit for the\ninstalments completed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n CASE: SUMPTER VS.\nHEDGES (1898)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The plaintiff, a builder agreed with H to erect a house for\n565 euros. He did work to the value of 333 Euros and then abandoned the\ncontract. H thereupon completed the construction himself. Held, the plaintiff was\nnot entitled to recover anything because the contract was not divisible. His\nplea that the defendant has accepted the benefit of part performance was\nrejected as the defendant has no option but to accept the work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n CASE: CRAVEN ELLIS\nVS. CANONS LTD. (1936)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The plaintiff was appointed as the managing director of a\ncompany. The appointment was made by the other directors who were qualified, as\nthey had not taken the qualification shares but the plaintiff continued to act\nas the managing director and sued the company for remuneration on quantum\nmeruit. Held, he was entitled to reasonable remuneration on a quantum meruit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n SUIT FOR SPECIFIC\nPERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Specific performance means actual carrying out the contract\nas agreed. The court may the direct the party liable for the breach to perform\nhis performance specifically as mentioned in the contract. This remedy is\ndiscretionary and provided in very rare cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This remedy is\nprovided in the following cases:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The injured party may file the suit for this kind of damage\nif there is the contract regarding the land, building and rare articles etc.\nSimilarly it is granted in the case of allotment of shares in a particular\ncompany.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This remedy is not\nprovided in the following cases:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n CASE: JAWAHAR SAO VS.\nSTRIGHANA (1961)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A contracted to sell certain goods to B. These goods were\nordinary in nature and not unique. On the due date A refused to resell the\ngoods to B. B filed the suit against A for specific performance. It was held\nthat B could not claim specific performance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Example:<\/strong> B was\nthe famous painter in the town. A\ncontracted with him to paint his picture. Later, B refused to make the\ncontract. Held, A can claim for the specific performance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n SUIT FOR INJUNCTION<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Injunction is the negative order of the court. It is the\norder of the court for restraining the person to do some act, which he has\npromised not to do under the contract. Sometimes a promise may contain two\nparts, one positive and another negative. If he commits breach of his promise,\nthe promise may get an order issued by the court restraining him from doing\nwhat he has promised not to do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Section\n42 of Specified Relief Act, 1963<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cInjunction is a mode of securing specific performance of\nthe negative terms of a contract.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court will grant\ninjunction in the following cases:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n CASE: WARNER BROTHERS\nVS. NELSON (1937)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The defendant of a film star, agreed to act exclusively for\nthe plaintiff not to work for any other party for a year. But before the expiry\nof the one year, the defendant actor also contract with another party to work.\nThe court issued injunction restraining from her acting for the other party\nduring the contract period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n CASE: LUMELY VS.\nWANGER (1852)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n W, agreed to sing at L\u2019s theatre and during a certain period\nto sing nowhere else. Afterwards W made contract with Z to sing at another\ntheatre and refused to perform the contract with the L. It was held that W\ncould be restrained by injunction from singing for Z.<\/p>\n\n\n\n CASE: METROPOLITAN\nELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. VS. GINDER (1901)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n G agreed to take all the electric energy required by his\npremises from M. it was held that this was in substance an agreement not to\ntake energy from any other person and it could be enforced by injunction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n SUIT FOR RESTITUTION<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n This remedy is based on the principle of equity and justice.\nRestitution means the act of restoration. If a person has received the unjust\nbenefit at the expense of other party; that person is bound to restore the same\nto the person from whom he has received it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This remedy is\nprovided in the following cases:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n SUIT FOR DAMAGES<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Damages means the monetary compensation to the aggrieved\nparty for any loss caused to him by the breach of the contract. The intention\nof the law in awarding the damages is not to punish the party, who has\ncommitted the breach of the contract. The main purpose of awarding damages is\nto put the aggrieved party in as good a position as he would have been if there\nis no breach of the contract.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Section\n73 of the Indian Contract Act<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWhen a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by\nsuch breach is entitled to receive, from the party liable for breach,\ncompensation for any loss caused to him thereby.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The damages awarded\nare of the following types:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n JOIN THE CHANNEL ON TELEGRAM<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n https:\/\/t.me\/commerceiets<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n