Bettini v Gye (1876) 1 QBD 183

Facts

• Alessandro Bettini, an opera singer, entered into a contract with Frederick Gye, director of the Royal Italian Opera at Covent Garden.
• Bettini agreed not to perform at any venue within 50 miles of London, except Covent Garden, between January 1, 1875, and December 1, 1875.
• The contract required Bettini to be present in London “without fail” six days before rehearsals for performances scheduled from March 30 to July 13, 1875.
• Bettini arrived only two days before the rehearsal period rather than the stipulated six days.
• Due to Bettini’s late arrival, Gye refused to honor the contract, claiming the breach entitled him to terminate the agreement.

Issues

1. Whether the requirement for Bettini to arrive six days before rehearsals was a condition (a fundamental term) or a warranty (a less significant term) of the contract.
2. Whether Gye was entitled to treat the contract as repudiated and refuse Bettini's services due to this breach.

Decision

• The court held that the requirement to arrive six days before rehearsals was not a condition but a warranty.
• The breach did not affect the fundamental nature or main purpose of the contract, which was for Bettini’s continued performance over the engagement.
• As the breach was of a warranty, Gye was not entitled to terminate the contract but was limited to claiming damages for any loss suffered from Bettini’s late arrival.
• The court emphasized that only breaches of essential terms going "to the root of the matter" justify termination.

Legal Principles

• A contractual term is a condition only if its breach deprives the innocent party of the essential benefit of the contract; otherwise, the term is a warranty providing a remedy only in damages.
• The distinction between conditions and warranties depends on the importance of the term to the purpose of the contract, not just its wording.
• The case established that not every breach permits rescission; courts must analyze whether the term breached is fundamental to contract performance.

Conclusion

Bettini v Gye established that not all contractual terms are conditions; only those going to the root of the contract justify termination for breach. Here, Bettini’s late arrival was a breach of warranty, not a condition, so Gye was only entitled to damages and not contract repudiation. The decision remains significant in the classification of contractual terms and the remedies for their breach.