Ratio Decidendi
A contractual term that does not go to the root of the contract is a warranty rather than a condition. Breach of a warranty entitles the innocent party to damages only, and not to terminate the contract. Whether a term is a condition or a warranty depends on its importance to the substance of the agreement, judged in light of the whole contract and its purpose.
ਤੱਥ
A singer was engaged for a season of concerts, subject to a requirement that he attend in London for six days of rehearsals before the season began. He arrived three days late for the rehearsals because of illness. The producers treated the engagement as at an end and refused to let him perform.
ਫੈਸਲੇ ਦਾ ਸਾਰ
The Queen's Bench Division held that the singer's obligation to attend rehearsals for six days before the season was a subsidiary term — a warranty — and not a condition going to the root of the contract, so that his arriving three days late through illness did not entitle the producers to terminate the engagement; they were confined to a claim in damages for any loss caused. Blackburn J reasoned that whether a term is a condition precedent to the other party's liability, or merely an independent (collateral) agreement, depends on the importance of the term to the main purpose of the contract, viewed as a whole. Missing part of the preliminary rehearsals did not defeat the substance of an engagement to sing throughout the season, so the producers' purported termination was wrongful. The decision is the classic contrast to Poussard v Spiers, the two together marking out the condition/warranty distinction.
ਮੁੱਖ ਹਵਾਲੇ
"We think the answer to that question depends on whether this engagement to be in London six days before is a condition precedent to the defendant's liability, or only an independent agreement."
— Blackburn J
ਬਾਅਦ ਦਾ ਇਲਾਜ
Paired with Poussard v Spiers as the classic illustration of the condition/warranty distinction.
What To Do Next
Step-by-Step Guides
Know Your Rights
Get Professional Help