Re Nelson [1928] Ch 920

Facts

  • The dispute arose from a contract for the sale of goods with multiple deliverables and payment terms.
  • The buyer sought to terminate a specific portion of the agreement, alleging breaches by the seller affecting only certain contractual obligations.
  • The seller argued the contract was indivisible and that termination of any part would necessitate termination of the entire contract.
  • The Chancery Division was tasked with determining whether partial termination was permissible under the circumstances, analyzing the contract's terms, the breaches involved, and relevant equitable principles.

Issues

  1. Whether partial termination of the contract was legally permissible when only certain obligations had allegedly been breached.
  2. Whether the contract was divisible such that specific obligations could be terminated without undermining the overall agreement.
  3. What equitable considerations applied in granting or denying partial termination.

Decision

  • The court held that the doctrine of partial termination permits the termination of discrete contractual obligations if the contract is divisible.
  • It was determined that the substantial performance test should be applied to assess whether the breached obligations were essential or separable.
  • The court found that the buyer’s claim for partial termination was justified, as the seller’s breaches were material but affected only a portion of the contract.
  • The seller’s lack of bad faith and the absence of unjust enrichment or undue hardship influenced the equitable outcome in favor of the buyer.

Legal Principles

  • The doctrine of partial termination allows for the termination of specific obligations within a contract, provided the contract is divisible and the breaches are material.
  • The "substantial performance" test is used to determine if unperformed obligations are separable from the rest of the contract.
  • Equitable considerations, including the potential for unjust enrichment or hardship, are relevant in assessing partial termination.
  • The judgment clarified the significance of precise contract drafting regarding the divisibility of obligations and remedies for partial breaches.

Conclusion

Re Nelson [1928] Ch 920 established a key legal framework for partial termination, permitting parties to end specific, divisible obligations within a contract following material breach, provided such termination is fair and does not undermine the residual agreement, thereby shaping subsequent contract law jurisprudence.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal