Appleby v Myers [1867]
Share
Appleby v Myers [1867] LR 2 CP 651 is a case that established a common law principle related to restitution and frustration of contracts. The court held that restitution is not applicable when work has been done but is subsequently destroyed by a supervening event, as no benefit is conferred to the other party.
Appleby, the plaintiff, entered into a contract to construct machinery for Myers, the defendant, in Myers’ factory. However, a fire occurred in the factory, resulting in the destruction of the machine. Appleby then sued for payment for the portion of the work it had completed.
The Exchequer Chamber rejected Appleby's claim, stating that the contract had been frustrated due to the destruction of the machine. According to the common law rule, no payment is due under the contract if the work is not completed.
Justice Blackburn, in delivering the judgment, emphasised that the plaintiffs, having contracted to perform an entire work for a specific sum, can only recover if the work is done. The destruction of the machine meant that the contract had been frustrated, and as a result, no payment was owed under the contract.
The case established the common law principle that restitution is not applicable when work contracted to be done is destroyed by a supervening event, and no benefit is conferred to the other party. This principle is rooted in the idea that if the contract is frustrated and the work is not completed, the party performing the work cannot claim payment.
This common law rule was followed in subsequent cases, such as BP v Hunt [1983]. In BP v Hunt, it was held that no restitution is to be granted under the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 for non-monetary benefits conferred if the outcome is destroyed by the frustrating event. The principle reflects a strict application of the doctrine of frustration and its impact on restitutionary claims.
Appleby, the plaintiff, entered into a contract to construct machinery for Myers, the defendant, in Myers’ factory. However, a fire occurred in the factory, resulting in the destruction of the machine. Appleby then sued for payment for the portion of the work it had completed.
The Exchequer Chamber rejected Appleby's claim, stating that the contract had been frustrated due to the destruction of the machine. According to the common law rule, no payment is due under the contract if the work is not completed.
Justice Blackburn, in delivering the judgment, emphasised that the plaintiffs, having contracted to perform an entire work for a specific sum, can only recover if the work is done. The destruction of the machine meant that the contract had been frustrated, and as a result, no payment was owed under the contract.
The case established the common law principle that restitution is not applicable when work contracted to be done is destroyed by a supervening event, and no benefit is conferred to the other party. This principle is rooted in the idea that if the contract is frustrated and the work is not completed, the party performing the work cannot claim payment.
This common law rule was followed in subsequent cases, such as BP v Hunt [1983]. In BP v Hunt, it was held that no restitution is to be granted under the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 for non-monetary benefits conferred if the outcome is destroyed by the frustrating event. The principle reflects a strict application of the doctrine of frustration and its impact on restitutionary claims.
