Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Ambivalent Notion of ‘Fundamental Breach’ in Indian Law of Contract: Towards a New Paradigm 

  • Published:
Liverpool Law Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper analyses the concept of fundamental breach under Indian law of contract. In doing so, it provides a comparative assessment with English law. It examines some plausible reasons for Indian law not being a favourable choice in the international community despite its wide-ranging similarity to English law. The paper accordingly identifies some mechanisms to develop Indian law in the interests of predictability. It considers the role that the provisions of the PICC on the subject may play during regulatory reforms to fill the gaps in Indian law. A close examination of the provisions of Indian and English law of contract demonstrates the requirement to prove that the breach was material before determining the consequences of the same as a necessary corollary. Simultaneously, although India resembles English law at many levels, the lack of legislative reform or judicial activism in the Republic to clarify the exact consequences of a breach may have contributed as a factor to render it an unpopular choice of law among parties to an international contract. On the contrary, English law has undergone significant development in recent years, and the choice of the legal system to govern international agreements is widespread.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See Bridge (2010, p. 916).

  2. See in this respect, the decision of the English court in Karsales (Harrow) Ltd v Wallis [1956] 2 All ER 866, discussed below.

  3. Ibid.

  4. See, George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds [1983] 2 AC 803.

  5. See for instance, the legal principles of Italy, Finland, Denmark, Sweden and the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods [CISG].

  6. See in this respect, the discussion in Part II.B below.

  7. For a detailed discussion on the doctrine of frustration under the English common law, see, Rapsomanikas (2014, p. 256 et seq).

  8. For a detailed discussion on force majeure in civil law jurisdictions, see, Katsivela (2007, p. 112).

  9. [1956] 2 All ER 866.

  10. Ibid., p. 869.

  11. Ibid., p. 871.

  12. Ibid. But see the decision of the Privy Council in Canada Steamship Lines Ltd v The King [1952] AC 192. The decision regulated the parameters of exclusion clauses on negligence. Accordingly, the party that has breached the contract could not evade liability for negligence unless the exclusion clause included an express indication to this effect. In circumstances where such an express indication was missing, the court would examine whether the exemption clause contained any general words on loss or damage which were wide enough to extend to the loss caused by negligence. If the wordings were not wide enough, the court would evaluate whether ‘the head of damage could be based on some other ground other than negligence’ – provided that it was not fanciful or remote.

  13. Ibid., p. 871.

  14. [1956] 2 All ER 866.

  15. See generally, (unnamed) ‘The Nine Lives of Fundamental Breach’ (1985) 10 Canada Business Law Journal 80.

  16. [1966] 2 All ER 61.

  17. Ibid., p. 75–76, referring to UGS Finance v National Mortgage Bank of Greece [1964] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 446 (Eng CA) 453.

  18. Ibid., p. 98.

  19. See, Atkin (1981, p. 437), referring to Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] 2 WLR 283, 288.

  20. See, Waddams (1978–1979, p. 296).

  21. Ibid.

  22. [1970] 2 W.L.R. 198.

  23. See in this respect, Beatson et al. (2020, p. 199).

  24. Ibid., p. 205 which indicates that prior to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 [CRA], the provisions of the UCTA extended to consumer and non-consumer contracts.

  25. Beatson et al. (2020, p. 206).

  26. [1980] AC 827 (HL).

  27. Ibid.

  28. Ibid.

  29. Ibid.

  30. Ibid., p. 847.

  31. Ibid., p. 847.

  32. Ibid., p. 843.

  33. Ibid.

  34. Beatson et al. (2020, p. 199) referring to Photo [1980] AC 827 (HL).

  35. Photo Production, ibid.

  36. Ibid., p. 813.

  37. See, George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds [1983] 2 AC 803. Also see, Persimmon Homes Ltd v Ove Arup and Partners Ltd [2017] 2 CLC 28.

  38. Bridge (2010, p. 916); and Beatson et al. (2020, p. 519).

  39. See HongKong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd [1962] 2 QB 26, 66.

  40. Ibid.

  41. Ibid.

  42. Treitel (2014, p. 974, [18–032]).

  43. Ibid., p. 974 referring to Vigers v Cook [1919] 2 KB 475.

  44. Ibid., pp. 977–979 referring to HongKong Fir [1962] 2 QB 26. In HongKong Fir the court refused to permit the termination of the contract upon finding that the real intention of the party was not that the failure to perform a seaworthy vessel was sufficiently serious—but, that the contract had become a bad bargain for that party as a result of the ‘catastrophic fall in the freight market’.

  45. Ibid., p. 975, referring to Maple Flock Co Ltd v Universal Furniture Products (Wembley) Ltd [1934] 1 KB 148.

  46. Ibid., p. 976 referring to Bradford v Williams [1872] LR 7 Ex 259; and Beatson et al. (2020, p. 521) referring to Millar’s Karri and Jarrah Co v Weddel [1909] 100 LT 128.

  47. See, Anson, Ibid.

  48. Treitel (2014, p. 1031, [18–129]).

  49. See, Beatson et al. (2020, p. 517).

  50. s 49, CRA.

  51. Ibid., s 51.

  52. Ibid., s 52.

  53. Ibid., s 54(7)(f).

  54. Ibid., ss 42(2) and 43.

  55. Ibid.

  56. Ibid., ss 42(3) and 44.

  57. Ibid., s 45.

  58. Beatson et al. (2020, p. 150).

  59. s 11(3), SGA.

  60. Ibid.

  61. Ibid.

  62. Ibid., s 13.

  63. Ibid., s 15.

  64. Ibid., ss 13 and 15.

  65. Ibid., s 14.

  66. Ibid., s 14(2A) and (2B) of the SGA; and Beatson et al. (2020, p. 171) which indicates that the expression ‘satisfactory quality’ replaced the criterion of ‘merchantable quality’ as a result of the amendment of the SGA in 1994.

  67. Ibid., s 14(3); and Beatson et al. (2020, pp. 172–174).

  68. Ibid., s 14(2A), SGA 1979, inserted by the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994.

  69. Ibid.

  70. Beatson et al. (2020, p. 150).

  71. s 11(3), SGA; and Beatson et al. (2020, p. 150).

  72. Ibid.

  73. See in this respect, Wickman Ltd v Schuler AG [1974] AC 235 in which the court refused the termination of the contract for distributor’s failure to make one out of the 1400 mandatory visits over a period of four years. Also see, Beatson et al. (2020, pp. 150–151).

  74. [1976] QB 44. The case is also referred to as Cehave NV v Bremer Handelsgesellschaft mbH.

  75. [1962] 2 QB 26. But see, Bunge Corp v Tradax Export SA [1981] 1 WLR 711, 724; and Lombard North Central Plc v Butterworth [1987] QB 527, 535.

  76. See Treitel (2014, pp. 984–985), referring to HongKong Fir [1962] 2 QB 26, 69.

  77. Ibid., p. 70.

  78. Treitel (2014, p. 990 [18–053]).

  79. Beatson et al. (2020, p. 153).

  80. Ibid.

  81. Ibid., p. 152 referring to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ampurious Nu Homes Holdings Ltd v Telford Homes (Creekside) Ltd [2013] 4 All ER 377 [44], [64].

  82. [1976] QB 44, 60. Also see, Peacock (2003, p. 109) at ff 109, referring to Atiyah (2001, p. 81). Atiyah opines that an implied term will be treated differently from an implied condition. Thus, if an obligation.

    ‘is express, it may or may not be a condition in the strict sense, but if it is implied under the Act, then it must be (because the Act says it is) a condition—and it was assumed that this means a condition in the strict sense’.

  83. See s 15A(1)(b), SGA.

  84. Ibid., Sections 19, 20 and 22.

  85. Ibid., Section 20(5).

  86. Ibid., Section 9–18.

  87. See, s 2(7), SoGA which defines the term ‘goods’ as ‘every kind of moveable property other than actionable claims and money; and includes stock and shares, growing crops, grass, and things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before sale or under the contract of sale’.

  88. Although India has promulgated the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to regulate consumer contracts, its provisions are not similar to its English counterpart that regulates consumer contracts on the sale of goods, services or digital content. The provisions of the Indian Act are of a general nature.

  89. For a list of signatories to the CISG, visit, http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/sale_goods/1980CISG_status.html (accessed 2 February 2021).

  90. For a detailed discussion on the private international law of India vis-à-vis the applicable law in the absence of choice of the parties, see, Khanderia (2020a, b, pp. 439–442).

  91. See s 28(1)(b)(iii), Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, Act No. 26 of 1996. See, s 1(2) which states that in matters of international commercial arbitration, the legislation will apply to the whole of India (including Jammu and Kashmir).

  92. Ibid.

  93. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd [MSE] v Datar Switchgear Ltd and Ors [2018] 3 SCC 133.

  94. [2018] 3 SCC 133.

  95. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution [MSE] v DSL Enterprises Pvt Ltd [2009] Arb LR 422, 2009 SCC Online Bom 413.

  96. See the decision of the Supreme Court of India in MSE [2018] 3 SCC 133 [67], referring to the decision of the High Court in MSE [2009] Arb LR 422 [51], [53].

  97. [1966] 2 All ER 61.

  98. See the decision of the High Court in MSE [2009] Arb LR 422 [50].

  99. (2012) 3 SCC 495, referring to the landmark verdict of the House of Lords in Photo Production v Securicor Ltd [1980] AC 827 (HL), 848–852.

  100. Ibid.

  101. Ibid.

  102. [1980] AC 827 (HL).

  103. (2012) 3 SCC 495, 497–498.

  104. Ibid., p. 497.

  105. See text accompanying note 46.

  106. See, Om Prakash Baldve Kishan v U.O.I. & Another FAO (OS) No 14 of 1980 & FAO (OS) No 32 of 1980 [11]; Federal Commerce and Navigation Ltd v Molena Alpha Ltd [1979] AC 757; Bhadbhade (2014, p. 779).

  107. Bhadbhade (2014, pp. 778–788).

  108. Ibid.

  109. Ibid., p. 778.

  110. Ibid.

  111. Ibid.

  112. Ibid.

  113. See, Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals v Ramaniyam Real Estates Pvt Ltd Civil Appeal No. 6437 of 2011 [38]. Also see, Bhadbhade (2014, pp. 849–853).

  114. Ibid.

  115. See, Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd v Vellapally Bros Construction Pvt Ltd 1982 SCC Online Ker 281; Chand Rani v Kamal Rani (1993) 1 SCC 519; and Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals v Ramaniyam Real Estates Pvt Ltd Civil Appeal No. 6437 of 2011. Also see, Bhadbhade (2014, p. 860).

  116. See, Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals v Ramaniyam Real Estates Pvt Ltd Civil Appeal No. 6437 of 2011 [42].

  117. See, Saradamini Kandappan v S Rajalakshmi & Ors (2011) 12 SCC 8.

  118. s 2(f), ICA.

  119. See, Bhadbhade (2014, p. 839). s 53, ICA stipulates:

    ‘when a contract contains reciprocal promises and one party to the contract prevents the other from performing his promise, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the party so prevented; and he is entitled to compensation from the other party for any loss which he may sustain in consequence of the non-performance of the contract’.

  120. Bhadbhade (2014, pp. 839–840).

  121. s 54, ICA.

  122. See, s 12(4), SoGA.

  123. See in this respect, the decision of the Calcutta court in Calicut Engineering Works (P) Ltd v Batliboi Ltd (2007) 1 Cal LT 466 [15].

  124. See, s 12, SoGA.

  125. Ibid., s 12(3).

  126. Ibid., s 12(4).

  127. See, Indochem Electronic & Anr v Additional Collector of Customs AP (2006) SCC 721.

  128. s 12(4), SoGA.

  129. Ibid.

  130. Ibid., ss 14–17.

  131. Ibid., s 16.

  132. Ibid.

  133. Ibid., s 15.

  134. Ibid, s 16(2); and Calicut Engineering Works (P) Ltd v Batliboi Ltd (2007) 1 Cal LT 466 [15].

    Also see, Mulla (2012, pp. 48–50).

  135. s 15, SOGA.

  136. See, the Sale and Supply of Goods Act, 1994.

  137. See Beatson et al. (2020, p. 171), referring to The Hansa Nord/Cehave NV v Bremer Handelsgesellschaft mbH [1976] QB 44; and the Law Comm No 162, Sale and Supply of Goods, (1987), [2.9 ff] at ff 220.

  138. See, Section 16(2), SoGA.

  139. Ibid., Section 16(1).

  140. Ibid., Section 15.

  141. Ibid., Section 17.

  142. Ibid., Section 15.

  143. Ibid.

  144. Ibid., Section 11.

  145. See, Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals v Ramaniyam Real Estates Pvt Ltd Civil Appeal No. 6437 of 2011 [42].

  146. See, Saradamini Kandappan v S Rajalakshmi & Ors (2011) 12 SCC 8.

  147. See, Lucknow Automobiles v Replacement Parts Co AIR 1940 Oudh 443; Mahabir Prasad Rungta v Durga Dutta AIR 1957 Pat 586; Venkateshwara Minerals Firm v Jugalkishore Chiranjitlal Firm AIR 1986 Kant 14; and Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals v Ramaniyam Real Estates Pvt Ltd Civil Appeal No. 6437 of 2011.

  148. s 62, SoGA.

  149. See the decision of the English court in Wickman Ltd v Schuler AG [1974] AC 235; and text accompanying note 87.

  150. See in this respect Section 15A (1), SGA.

  151. [1962] 2 QB 26.

  152. [1976] QB 44.

  153. See, ss 45–54 of SOGA, which discuss the unpaid seller’s right to lien.

  154. Ibid., s 55(1).

  155. Ibid., s. 56.

  156. Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd v Vellapally Bros Construction Pvt Ltd 1982 SCC Online Ker 281.

  157. Ibid.

  158. Ibid., [118]–[140].

  159. [1956] 2 All ER 866.

  160. [1980] 2 WLR 283.

  161. 1982 SCC Online Ker 281, [101]–[105].

  162. Ibid., [101].

  163. Ibid., [104].

  164. Ibid.

  165. [1986] 3 SCC 156.

  166. [1995] 5 SCC 482.

  167. [1986] 3 SCC 156.

  168. Ibid., [83], [84], [89].

  169. Ibid., [83]–[87].

  170. Ibid., [87]. However, the court erroneously stated that the decision of the House of Lords in Photo Production was prior to the enactment of the UCTA.

  171. Ibid., [85].

  172. Ibid., [79]–[80].

  173. Ibid., [88].

  174. Ibid., [88].

  175. Ibid., [82], [89].

  176. Ibid, [87]–[89].

  177. Ibid., [79].

  178. Ibid., [89].

  179. Ibid.

  180. Ibid.

  181. [1995] 5 SCC 482.

  182. [1980] 2 WLR 283. See Ibid at [36].

  183. [1986] 3 SCC 156.

  184. [1995] 5 SCC 482, [31]–[37].

  185. Ibid., [32], [38], [40], [47].

  186. [2018] 3 SCC 133.

  187. [1966] 2 All ER 61.

  188. [2018] 3 SCC 133, [67] referring to the decision of the High Court in MSE [2009] Arb LR 422 [50]–[53].

  189. 1982 SCC Online Ker 281.

  190. See generally, Khanderia, (2020a, b, pp. 52, 61–62).

  191. [1980] AC 827.

  192. [1966] 2 All ER 61.

  193. Ibid.

  194. [1956] 2 All ER 866.

  195. See text accompanying notes 21–24.

  196. Article 141 states that ‘the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.’

  197. See the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Hunter Engineering Co Inc v Syncrude Canada Ltd. [1989] 1 SCR 426.

  198. ibid [154].

  199. 2010 SCC 4, [122].

  200. Black (2015, pp. 156–161) referring to National Westminster Bank v Morgan [1985] 1 AC 686; Cain v Clarica 2005 ABCA 427; and Cope v Hill 2007 ABCA 32.

  201. Tercon Contractors 2010 SCC 4, [123].

  202. Black (2015, p. 161), referring to Richardson v Mellish (1824) All ER Rep 258.

  203. [1952] AC 192.

  204. Black (2015, p. 152), referring to Kinnear v Canadian Recreation Excellence (Vernon) Corp 2010 BCSC 1899; and Shelton-Johnson v Delta School District No 37 2012 BCCA 439.

  205. See the decision of the Canadian court in Tilden Rent-a-Car Co v Glendenning [1978] 83 DLR (3d) 400, 18 OR (2d) 601 (CA).

  206. See in this respect, Gaunt v John Hancock Mut. Ins. Co. 160 F.2d 599 (2nd Cir., 1947).

  207. Ibid.

  208. Ibid., p. 609.

  209. Ibid.

  210. See the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Progressive Homes Ltd v Lombard General Insurance Co of Canada 2010 SCC 33.

  211. See the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Jesuit Fathers of Upper Canada v Guardian Insurance Co of Canada 2006 SCC 21.

  212. See, Federal Commerce & Navigation Co Ltd v Molena Alpha Inc (The Nanfri) [1979] AC 757.

  213. See, Foundation Dev. Corp. v. Loehmann's 163 Ariz. 438 (1990).

  214. [1986] 3 SCC 156.

  215. Ibid.

  216. [1995] 5 SCC 482.

  217. [2018] 3 SCC 133.

  218. [1966] 2 All ER 61.

  219. [2018] 3 SCC 133, [67].

  220. [1986] 3 SCC 156.

  221. See the decisions of the Canadian courts in National Westminster Bank v Morgan [1985] 1 AC 686; Cain v Clarica 2005 ABCA 427; and Cope v Hill 2007 ABCA 32.

  222. For a more detailed understanding on the structure of the UNIDROIT, see, Kropholler (1975, pp. 7–15); and the UNIDROIT website, www.unidroit.org/about-unidroit/overview (accessed 16 August 2020).

  223. The PICC is available at: https://www.unidroit.org/english/principles/contracts/principles2016/principles2016-e.pdf (accessed 14 February 2021).

  224. See in this respect, Para 7 of the Preamble to the PICC.

  225. See the decisions of the Delhi High Court in Sandvik Asia Pvt Ltd v Vardhman Promoters Pvt Ltd 2006 (2) CTLJ 305 Del; and Hansalaya Properties and Another v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd RFA (OS) No.26/1986, Judgment pronounced on 20 Aug 2008. The court relied on Articles 4.1, 4.4 and 4.5, PICC to settle the parties’ claims.

  226. See, Article 7.3.1, PICC.

  227. See, Official Comment 2 to Article 7.3.1, PICC, p. 250.

  228. Article 7.3.1(2)(a), PICC.

  229. Ibid., Article 7.3.1(2)(c)-(d).

  230. Ibid.

  231. Ibid., Article 7.3.1(2)(e).

  232. Huber (2015, pp. 921, 923).

  233. Ibid.

  234. See, Article 7.3.1(2)(e), PICC.

  235. Ibid.

  236. See, Illustration 5 of the Official Comment to Article 7.3.1(2)(e), PICC; and Huber (2015, p. 923).

  237. See, Grebler (2007, p. 410).

  238. See, Fiona Cain, ‘Expert Opinion: London Remains No. 1 for Resolving International Commercial Disputes’ Law.Com International (24 August 2020), available at https://www.law.com/international-edition/2020/08/24/london-remains-no-1-for-resolving-international-commercial-disputes/?slreturn=20210314064208.

  239. See, Cuniberti (2014, p. 473).

  240. See for instance, the decisions of British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v Shanmughavilas Cashew Industries [1990] 3 SCC 481; National Thermal Power Corporation v Singer Company [1992] 3 SCC 551; Modi Entertainment Network and Another v W.S.G Cricket PTE. Ltd [2003] 4 SCC 341; Rhodia Ltd and Others v Neon Laboratories Ltd AIR 2002 Bom 502; White Industries Australia Ltd v Coal India Ltd [2004] 2 Cal LJ 197; Swatch Ltd. v Priya Exhibitors Pvt. Ltd (101) DRJ 99; Shree Precoated Steels Ltd. v Macsteel International Far East Ltd. and Anr [2008] 2 Bom CR 681; Max India Ltd. v General Binding Corporation 2009 (112) DRJ 611 (DB); and Kumarina Investment Ltd. v Digital Media Convergence Ltd & Anr 2010 TDSAT 73. In most of these decisions, the parties had chosen English law to govern their dispute. In others, they chose to be governed by the law of another country.

References

  • Atkin, John. 1981. Fundamental breach and the nature of exclusion clauses—Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd. Sydney Law Review 9: 434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atiyah, Patrick. 2001. The sale of goods. 10th ed. Longman Publications, Harlow.

  • Beatson, Jack, Andrew Burrows, and John Cartwright. 2020. Anson’s law of contract, 31st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bhadbhade, Nilima. 2014. Pollock and Mulla on the Indian Contract and Specific Relief Acts: Volume 1. 14th ed. New Delhi: Lexis Nexis Publications

  • Black, Alexander. 2015. Exclusion clauses in contracts and their enforceability following the decline of fundamental breach. Advocates’ Quarterly. 44 (2): 139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridge, Michael. 2010. Avoidance for fundamental breach of contract under the UN Convention on the International Sale of Goods. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 59: 911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cain, Fiona. 24 August 2020. Expert Opinion: London Remains No. 1 for Resolving International Commercial Disputes. Law.Com International. www.law.com/international-edition/2020/08/24/london-remains-no-1-for-resolving-international-commercial-disputes/?slreturn=20210314064208.

  • Cuniberti, Gilles. 2014. The international market for contracts: The most attractive contract laws. Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business. 34: 455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grebler, Eduardo. 2007. Fundamental breach of contract under the CISG: A controversial rule. American Society of International Law Proceedings 101: 407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, Peter. 2015. In Commentary on the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC), ed. Stefan Vogenauer. Article 7.3.1, 2nd ed., 921. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Katsivela, Marel. 2007. Contracts: Force Majeure concept or Force Majeure clauses? Uniform Law Review/Rev. dr. unif. 12 (1): 101.

  • Khanderia, Saloni. 2020a. The ascertainment of the applicable law in the absence of choice in India and South Africa: A shared future in the BRICS. Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal. https://doi.org/10.1080/14729342.2020.1773019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khanderia, Saloni. 2020b. Transnational Contracts and their Performance during the Covid-19 Crisis: Reflections from India. BRICS Law Journal 7 (3): 52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kropholler, Jan. 1975. Internationales Einheitsrecht: Allgemeine Lehren. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck

  • Kull, Andrew. 1991. Mistake, frustration, and the windfall principle of contract remedies. Hastings Law Journal 43: 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulla, Dinshaw. 2012. Mulla on the sale of Goods Act and the Indian partnership. 10th ed. New Delhi: Lexis Nexis.

  • Nicholas, Barry. 1979. Force Majeure and frustration. American Journal of Comparative Law 27: 231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peacock, Darren. 2003. Avoidance and the notion of fundamental breach under the CISG: An English perspective. International Trade and Business Law Review. 8: 95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pejovic, Caslav. 2001. Civil law and common law: Two different paths leading to the same goal. Victoria University of Wellington Law Review 32: 817.

  • Rapsomanikas, Michael. 1979–1980. Frustration of contract in International Trade Law and Comparative Law. Duquesne Law Review 18: 551.

  • Treitel, Guenter. 2014. Frustration and Force Majeure, 3rd ed. London: Sweet and Maxwell Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Unnamed. 1985. The Nine Lives of Fundamental Breach. Canada Business Law Journal. 10: 80.

  • Waddams, Stephen. 1978–1979. Contracts-Exemption Clauses-Fundamental Breach-Unconscionability. University of Western Ontario Law Review 12: 295

  • Zuppi, Alberto. 1999. A Comparison of Buyer’s Remedies Under the CISG with the Latin American Legal Tradition. Review of the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. 3

Cases

  • Ampurious Nu Homes Holdings Ltd v Telford Homes (Creekside) Ltd [2013] 4 All ER 377

  • Bradford v Williams [1872] LR 7 Ex 259

  • Bunge Corp v Tradax Export SA [1981] 1 WLR 711

  • Calicut Engineering Works (P) Ltd v Batliboi Ltd (2007) 1 Cal LT 466

  • Canada Steamship Lines Ltd v The King [1952] AC 192

  • Cehave NV v Bremer Handelsgesellschaft mbH [1976] QB 44

  • Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd v Brojo Nath Ganguly [1986] 3 SCC 156

  • Chand Rani v Kamal Rani (1993) 1 SCC 519

  • Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals v Ramaniyam Real Estates Pvt Ltd Civil Appeal No. 6437 of 2011

  • Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd v Vellapally Bros Construction Pvt Ltd 1982 SCC Online Ker 281

  • Forklift Engineering Australia Pty Ltd v Powerlift (Nissan) Pty Ltd [2000] VSC 443

  • George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds [1983] 2 AC 803

  • HongKong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd [1962] 2 QB 26

  • Hunter Engineering Co Inc v Syncrude Canada Ltd. [1989] 1 SCR 426

  • Indochem Electronic & Anr v Additional Collector of Customs, AP (2006) SCC 721

  • Jesuit Fathers of Upper Canada v Guardian Insurance Co of Canada 2006 SCC 21

  • Karsales (Harrow) Ltd v Wallis [1956] 2 All ER 866

  • Kinnear v Canadian Recreation Excellence (Vernon) Corp 2010 BCSC 1899;

  • Life Insurance Company [LIC] of India & Anr v Consumer Education & Research Centre & Ors [1995] 5 SCC 482

  • Lombard North Central Plc v Butterworth [1987] QB 527

  • Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution [MSE] v DSL Enterprises Pvt Ltd [2009] Arb LR 422

  • Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd [MSE] v Datar Switchgear Ltd and Ors [2018] 3 SCC 133

  • Maple Flock Co Ltd v Universal Furniture Products (Wembley) Ltd [1934] 1 KB 148

  • Millar’s Karri and Jarrah Co v Weddel [1909] 100 LT 128

  • Persimmon Homes Ltd v Ove Arup and Partners Ltd [2017] 2 CLC 28

  • Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] 2 WLR 283

  • Progressive Homes Ltd v Lombard General Insurance Co of Canada 2010 SCC 33

  • Richardson v Mellish (1824) All ER Rep 258

  • Saradamini Kandappan v S Rajalakshmi & Ors (2011) 12 SCC 8

  • Shelton-Johnson v Delta School District No 37 2012 BCCA 439

  • Suisse Atlantique Société d’ Armement Maritime SA v NV Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale [1966] 2 All ER 61

  • Tercon Contractors Ltd. v British Columbia (Minister of Transportation & Highways) 2010 SCC 4

  • Thomas National Transport (Melbourne) Pty. Ltd. v May & Baker (Australia) Pty Ltd. [1966] 115 CLR 353

  • Tilden Rent-a-Car Co v Glendenning [1978] 83 DLR (3d) 400

  • Vigers v Cook, [1919] 2 KB 475

  • Wickman Ltd v Schuler AG [1974] AC 235

Legal Acts

  • Austrian Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB) 1812

  • Constitution of India 1950

  • Consumer Rights Act 2015 [England]

  • Danish Sale of Goods Act 2003

  • Dutch Civil Code 1992

  • Finnish Sale of Goods Act 1987

  • French Civil Code 2016

  • German Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB) 1900

  • Greek Civil Code 1946

  • Indian Contract Act 1872

  • Italian Codice Civile 1942

  • Principles of European Contract Law (Kluwer International Law: The Hague, Netherlands, 1999) [PECL]

  • Principles, Definitions and Model Rules of European Private Law, Draft Common Frame of Reference, Prepared by the Study Group on a European Civil Code and the Research Group on EC Private Law (Sellier: Munich, 2008) [DCFR]

  • Québec Civil Code 1991

  • Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994 [England]

  • Sale of Goods Act 1930 [India]

  • Sale of Goods Act 1979 [England]

  • Swedish Sale of Goods Act 1990

  • Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 [England]

  • UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts 2016 [PICC]

  • United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods 1980 [CISG]

  • Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author would like to express her gratitude to Professor Stephan Vogenauer, Director of the Institute and Head of its Department: European and Comparative Legal History, Frankfurt for his their insights and comments on the doctrine of fundamental non-performance in the PICC.

Funding

The research has been funded by the Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung as per the Alexander von Humboldt Fellowship (Experienced Researcher) that was awarded to the author to conduct research at the Ludwig Maximilian University, Munich, Munich, Germany.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Jindal Global Law School, OP Jindal Global University, Sonipat, India

    Saloni Khanderia

  2. Faculty of Law, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa

    Saloni Khanderia

Authors
  1. Saloni Khanderia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Saloni Khanderia.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Khanderia, S. The Ambivalent Notion of ‘Fundamental Breach’ in Indian Law of Contract: Towards a New Paradigm . Liverpool Law Rev 43, 391–420 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10991-022-09300-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10991-022-09300-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation