Dies v British and International Mining and Finance Corporation Ltd: 1939

Deposit forfeit requires Readiness to Complete

A seller’s title to retain a deposit or instalment is conditional upon his completing the contract. Rights of restitution for failure of consideration do not depend on the absence of fault of the plaintiff.
A party who commits a repudiatory breach which leads to a contract being terminated is not thereby deprived of the right to claim in unjust enrichment.
Stable J said: ‘In my judgment there would be a manifest defect in the law if, where a buyer had paid for his goods but was unable to accept delivery, the vendor could retain the goods and the money quite irrespective of whether the money so retained bore any relation to the amount of damage, if any, sustained as a result of the breach. The seller is already amply protected, since he can recover such damage as he has sustained and can, it seems, set off his claim for damages against the claim for the return of the purchase price.’

Stable J
[1939] 1 KB 724
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedStocznia Gdanska S A v Latvian Shipping Co and Others HL 22-Jan-1998
The parties had contracted to design, build, complete and deliver ships. The contract was rescinded after a part performance.
Held: It remained appropriate for payment to be made for the work already done in the design and construction stages: . .
CitedQuirkco Investments Ltd v Aspray Transport Ltd ChD 23-Nov-2011
The defendant tenant said that it had exercised a break clause in the lease held of the claimant. The claimant said the break notice was ineffective because the defendant was in breach of the lease, not having paid an iinsurance service charge, and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Equity

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.238537