Holme v Guppy
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1838 |
| Date | 01 January 1838 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 150 E.R. 1195
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 1 Jur. 825. Referred to, Roberts v. Bury Commissioners, 1870, L. r. 5 C. P. 320; Dodd v. Churton, [1897] 1 Q. B. 566.
holme and anothek v. guppy and another. Exch. of Pleas. 1838. - The plaintiffs, on the 19th April, 183G, entered into a written contract to build, for the sum of 17001., a brewery for the defendants, so far as regarded the carpenters' work, within the space of four months and a half next ensuing the date of the agreement : and in default of completing the same within the time therein-before limited, to forfeit to the defendants 401. per week for each week that the completion of the work should be delayed beyond the .'fist August, the amount to be deducted from the said sum of 17001., as liquidated damages. The plaintiff's did not begin the work for four weeks after the date of the agreement, in consequence of the defendants not being able to give them possession ; they were afterwards delayed one week by the default of their own workmen, and four weeks by the default of the masons, &e. employed by the defendants; and the work was not completed till five weeks after the time limited : - Held, that the defendants were not entitled to deduct from the 17001. any sum in respect of the delay, either for the otie or the four weeks. [S. C. 1 Jur. 825. Referred to, Roberts v. Bury Commissioners, 1870, L. B. 5 C. P. 320 ; Dodd v. Glmrton, [1897] 1 Q. B. 560.] Assumpsit for work arid labour, money paid, and on an account stated. The defendants pleaded, first, as to all except 2081. 18s. 4d., non assumpserunt ; secondly, as to 2001,, other than the 2081. 18s. 4d., actionem non, because the work and labour was done under an agreement, by which the plaintiffs agreed, in consideration of 17001., to build, within four months and a half after the date of the agreement, a brewery for the defendants ; and in case of default of the plaintiffs in completing the same, they were to forfeit 401. per week for each week the carpenters' and joiners' work was delayed beyond the time specified, the sum forfeited to be deducted from the said sum of 17001., as and for liquidated damages. That the carpenters' and joiners' work was not completed within the time agreed, but was delayed for five weeks beyond that time, and that the defendants were entitled to deduct the said sum of 2001. accordingly. The defendants pleaded, thirdly, payment into Court of the 2031. 18s...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lim Chin San Contractors Pte Ltd v LW Infrastructure Pte Ltd
...v ENE Aegiali I [2011] 1 Lloyd's Rep 30 (refd) Holland Leedon Pte Ltd v Metalform Asia Pte Ltd [2011] 1 SLR 517 (folld) Holme v Guppy (1838) 150 ER 1195; 3 M&W 387 (folld) Jones v The President and Scholars of St John's College, Oxford (1870) LR 6 QB 115 (refd) Kwang In Tong Chinese Temple ......
- Adyard Abu Dhabi v SD Marine Services
-
Clearlie Todman-brown Claimant v Melvin Rymer D/B/A Melvin Rymer Architect Inc. Defendant
...could not insist on completion by the estimated completion date, but only on completion within a reasonable time: Holme v Guppy (1838) 3 M & W 387; Charles Rickards Ltd v Oppenheim [1950] 1 K.B. 616. (4) The claimant did not repudiate the contract by her 'inability and/or refusal to pay. Th......
-
North Midland Building Ltd v Cyden Homes Ltd
...liability to pay liquidated damages, in circumstances where at least a part of the subsequent delay was caused by the employer. Thus, in Holme v Guppy (1838) 3 M&W 387, the defendant failed to give possession of the site for 4 weeks following execution of the contract. Parke B found that t......
-
Time is the Essence of this Contract: Is it Really?
...Authority, (2015) 3 SCC 49 [iii] (2003) 5 SCC 705 [iv] Percy Bilton Ltd. v Greater London Council, [1982] 1 WLR 794 [v] Holme v Guppy, (1838) 3 M&W 387 [vi] General Manager, Northern Railway and Another v Sarvesh Chopra, (2002) 4 SCC 45 [vii] McDermott International Inc. v Burn Standard Co.......
-
Apportionment of loss in contractual claims for damages at common law
...Union Government 1928 TPD 272 284; Hansen & Schrader v Deare (1887) 3 EDC 36; Cambrian Collieries Co v Jenkins & Sons (1902) 23 NLR 431. 79 3 M&W 387, 150 ER 1195. 80 1887 3 EDC 36 45. 81 See eg Erasmus v Pienaar 1984 4 SA 9 (T). 82 1887 3 EDC 36. 83 General Principles 214 n 99. © Juta and ......