246:
on which to ground the inference of a new contract. Where, as in the case of work done on land, the circumstances are such as to give the defendant no option whether he will take the benefit of the work or not, then one must look to other facts than the mere taking the benefit of the work to ground the inference of a new contract. In this case I see no other facts on which such an inference can be founded. The mere fact that a defendant is in possession of what he cannot help keeping, or even has done work upon it, affords no ground for such an inference. He is not bound to keep unfinished a building which in an incomplete state would be a nuisance on his land. I am therefore of opinion that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover for the work which he had done. I feel clear that the case of
227:. there pointed out with his usual clearness that in the case of a building erected upon land the mere fact that the defendant remains in possession of his land is no evidence upon which an inference of a new contract can be founded. He says: “In the case of goods sold and delivered, it is easy to shew a contract from the retention of the goods; but that is not so where work is done on real property.” I think the learned judge was quite right in holding that in this case there was no evidence from which a fresh contract to pay for the work done could be inferred.
28:
149:
learned judge has found as a fact that he abandoned the contract. Under such circumstances, what is a building owner to do? He cannot keep the buildings on his land in an unfinished state for ever. The law is that, where there is a contract to do work for a lump sum, until the work is completed the price of it cannot be recovered. Therefore the plaintiff could not recover on the original contract. It is suggested however that the plaintiff was entitled to recover for the work he did on a
239:
defendant had then proceeded to finish the work himself, the plaintiff might perhaps have been entitled to sue on a quantum meruit on the ground that the defendant had taken the benefit of the work done. But that is not the present case. There are cases in which, though the plaintiff has abandoned the performance of a contract, it is possible for him to raise the inference of a new contract to pay for the work done on a
245:
from the defendant's having taken the benefit of that work, but, so that may be done, the circumstances must be such as to give an option to the defendant to take or not to take the benefit of the work done. It is only where the circumstances are such as to give that option that there is any evidence
192:
applied, and there being no circumstances to justify an inference of a fresh contract the plaintiff must fail. My brother
Collins thinks that that case went to the Court of Appeal, and that he argued it there, and the Court affirmed the decision of the Queen's Bench Division. I think the appeal must
238:
I agree. I think the case is really concluded by the finding of the learned judge to the effect that the plaintiff had abandoned the contract. If the plaintiff had merely broken his contract in some way so as not to give the defendant the right to treat him as having abandoned the contract, and the
205:
land with unfinished buildings upon it, and he thereupon completed the work. That is no evidence from which the inference can be drawn that he entered into a fresh contract to pay for the work done by the plaintiff. If we held that the plaintiff could recover, we should in my opinion be overruling
174:
does not appear to have been referred to. There the plaintiff had contracted to erect on the defendant's land two corrugated iron roofs. When he had completed one of them, he does not seem to have said that he abandoned the contract, but merely that he would not go on unless the defendant paid him
204:
I am of the same opinion. The plaintiff had contracted to erect certain buildings for a lump sum. When the work was only partly done, the plaintiff said that he could not go on with it, and the judge has found that he abandoned the contract. The position therefore was that the defendant found his
119:
Mr
Sumpter was a builder. He had a contract to build two houses and stables for Mr Hedges for £560. He did work valued at £333 and said he had to stop because he had no more money. Substantial payments on account have in fact been made to the builder. Hedges finished the building, using materials
148:
In this case the plaintiff, a builder, entered into a contract to build two houses and stables on the defendant's land for a lump sum. When the buildings were still in an unfinished state the plaintiff informed the defendant that he had no money, and was not going on with the work any more. The
175:
for what he had already done. The defendant thereupon proceeded to erect for himself the second roof. The Court of Appeal held that there was in that case something from which a new contract might be inferred to pay for the work done by the plaintiff. That is not this case. In the case of
139:
found that Mr
Sumpter had abandoned the building work and emphasised that it left Mr Hedges without any choice of whether to adopt the work. It held that Mr Hedges had to pay for the building materials that he used, but did not need to reimburse Mr Sumpter for the half-built structures.
181:
there was a contract to erect a laundry on defendant's land, and the laundry erected was not in accordance with the contract, but the official referee held that the plaintiff could recover on a quantum meruit. The case came before a
Divisional Court, consisting of
161:
appears to be exactly in point. That case decides that, unless the building owner does something from which a new contract can be inferred to pay for the work already done, the plaintiff in such a case as this cannot recover on a quantum meruit. In the case of
252:, to which reference has been made, was the case which as counsel I argued in the Court of Appeal, and in which the Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the case was concluded by
211:, and a long series of cases in which it has been decided that there must in such a case be some evidence of a new contract to enable the plaintiff to recover on a
219:
164:
419:
248:
177:
254:
188:
170:
157:
414:
155:. But, so that may be, there must be evidence of a fresh contract to pay for the work already done. With regard to that, the case of
136:
409:
429:
127:
the contract, and said he could obtain money for the value of the materials but nothing for the work.
424:
100:
84:
quantum meruit, entire obligation, restitution for unjust enrichment, substantial performance
393:
96:
8:
124:
315:
285:
183:
108:
277:
269:
207:
241:
213:
151:
27:
403:
141:
104:
64:
231:
224:
120:
which
Sumpter had left behind. Sumpter sued for the outstanding money.
72:
197:
68:
54:
1 QB 673, 67 LJQB 545, 46 WR 454, 42 Sol Jo 362, 78 LT 378
401:
168:, to which we have been referred, the case of
186:and myself, and we said that the decision in
217:. There was nothing new in the decision in
26:
420:Court of Appeal (England and Wales) cases
402:
13:
415:English unjust enrichment case law
123:Bruce J found that Mr Sumpter had
14:
441:
387:
375:
366:
357:
348:
339:
330:
321:
308:
299:
1:
293:
314:Not reported, except in the
99:case concerning substantial
7:
273:(1795) 6 TR 320; 101 ER 573
262:
144:gave the leading judgment:
130:
10:
446:
410:English contract case law
101:performance of a contract
83:
78:
63:
58:
50:
42:
34:
25:
20:
114:
260:
229:
195:
394:Full text of judgment
236:
202:
146:
97:English contract law
430:1898 in British law
363:(1875) LR 10 Ex 330
220:Pattinson v Luckley
286:Bolton v Mahadeva
184:Lord Coleridge CJ
165:Lysaght v Pearson
109:unjust enrichment
88:
87:
437:
425:1898 in case law
382:
379:
373:
370:
364:
361:
355:
352:
346:
343:
337:
334:
328:
325:
319:
318:of March 3, 1879
312:
306:
303:
92:Sumpter v Hedges
30:
21:Sumpter v Hedges
18:
17:
445:
444:
440:
439:
438:
436:
435:
434:
400:
399:
390:
385:
380:
376:
371:
367:
362:
358:
354:(1795) 6 TR 320
353:
349:
344:
340:
335:
331:
326:
322:
316:Times Newspaper
313:
309:
304:
300:
296:
278:Hoenig v Isaacs
270:Cutter v Powell
265:
249:Whitaker v Dunn
208:Cutter v Powell
178:Whitaker v Dunn
137:Court of Appeal
133:
117:
95:1 QB 673 is an
38:Court of Appeal
12:
11:
5:
443:
433:
432:
427:
422:
417:
412:
398:
397:
389:
388:External links
386:
384:
383:
374:
372:3 Times LR 602
365:
356:
347:
338:
336:3 Times LR 602
329:
320:
307:
297:
295:
292:
291:
290:
282:
274:
264:
261:
242:quantum meruit
214:quantum meruit
152:quantum meruit
132:
129:
116:
113:
86:
85:
81:
80:
76:
75:
61:
60:
56:
55:
52:
48:
47:
44:
40:
39:
36:
32:
31:
23:
22:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
442:
431:
428:
426:
423:
421:
418:
416:
413:
411:
408:
407:
405:
395:
392:
391:
381:8 E&B 738
378:
369:
360:
351:
345:8 E&B 738
342:
333:
327:8 E&B 738
324:
317:
311:
305:8 E&B 738
302:
298:
289:2 All ER 1322
288:
287:
283:
280:
279:
275:
272:
271:
267:
266:
259:
257:
256:
251:
250:
244:
243:
235:
233:
228:
226:
222:
221:
216:
215:
210:
209:
201:
199:
194:
193:be dismissed.
191:
190:
185:
180:
179:
173:
172:
167:
166:
160:
159:
154:
153:
145:
143:
138:
128:
126:
121:
112:
110:
106:
102:
98:
94:
93:
82:
77:
74:
70:
66:
62:
59:Case opinions
57:
53:
49:
46:18 March 1898
45:
41:
37:
33:
29:
24:
19:
16:
396:on CommonLII
377:
368:
359:
350:
341:
332:
323:
310:
301:
284:
281:2 All ER 176
276:
268:
255:Munro v Butt
253:
247:
240:
237:
230:
218:
212:
206:
203:
196:
189:Munro v Butt
187:
176:
171:Munro v Butt
169:
163:
158:Munro v Butt
156:
150:
147:
134:
122:
118:
91:
90:
89:
15:
234:concurred.
200:concurred.
142:AL Smith LJ
105:restitution
65:AL Smith LJ
404:Categories
294:References
232:Collins LJ
225:Bramwell B
73:Collins LJ
198:Chitty LJ
125:abandoned
69:Chitty LJ
263:See also
131:Judgment
79:Keywords
51:Citation
43:Decided
223:, but
115:Facts
35:Court
135:The
107:for
103:and
71:and
406::
111:.
67:,
258:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
