Bolton V Mahadeva Case Study

Part A

By doctrine of substantial performance, in considering whether there was substantial performance, it is relevant to take account the nature of defects and the proportion between the cost of rectifying them and the contract price, defined in the case Bolton v Mahadeva. As by the factors mentioned, I believe whether and how much consideration should be rewarded is dependent and improvised on each case. I would take account of the nature of defects, the nature of the contract, and how the defects affect the innocent party's benefit, in investigating on whether ‘substantial performance’ deserve consideration.

I would like to examine about ‘entire obligation’ first, where any substantial performance does not entitle any consideration. It is usually owing to the nature of the contract,

If the seller and buyer both agree with how much the defect worth, and the remedies to recover the damage. After the buyer received the offer with substantial performance, they would contact the seller with whatever means to communicate with the seller, the buyer would try to convince the seller to recover the damage and the seller would try to pay less, eventually they would find a mutually-agreed solution, usually a promissory estoppel on promising not to sue the seller would be as one of the elements in the solution. As a result, no legal action was taken and the court need not do anything on the case. If dispute takes place between the two parties when ‘substantial performance’ happen, the court has to take action on that. The court would determine how far the work is done and how far the work is different from what is promised, in determining the consideration to be paid as for the work done. From the case Dakin v Lee , the plaintiff can get the recovery on the work is done, with some deduction on the poor quality of the work where it was not conformed to the contract