White and Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor [1962] AC 413 (HL)

Facts

  • White and Carter (Councils) Ltd, advertising contractors, entered into a three-year agreement with McGregor, a garage owner, to display advertisements for the garage on litterbins.
  • On the same day the contract was concluded, McGregor sought to cancel the agreement, citing a misunderstanding by his representative.
  • White and Carter refused to accept the cancellation, proceeded to perform the contract, and displayed the advertisements as agreed.
  • McGregor refused to pay for the advertisements, leading White and Carter to sue for the contract price as a debt rather than damages.
  • The case addressed whether the innocent party, having affirmed the contract and performed its obligations despite repudiation, could recover the agreed contractual sum.

Issues

  1. Whether the innocent party is entitled to affirm a contract and insist on performance (and the contract price) after anticipatory repudiation by the other party, rather than accepting the repudiation and suing for damages.
  2. Whether affirmation is permissible when performance can be completed without the cooperation of the breaching party.
  3. Whether affirmation should be limited by the lack of a legitimate interest or where such conduct would be unreasonable or wasteful.

Decision

  • The House of Lords (majority 3–2) allowed the appeal in favour of White and Carter.
  • Held that upon anticipatory repudiation, the innocent party may elect either to accept repudiation and claim damages, or affirm the contract and carry out performance.
  • Affirmation is permissible where performance does not require the breaching party’s cooperation.
  • The appellants were not obliged to accept McGregor’s attempted cancellation and could proceed to perform and claim the contract price as a debt.
  • The majority found no requirement to mitigate losses where the action is for the contract price as a debt.
  • Dissents expressed concern that the majority approach might circumvent the duty to mitigate and result in wastefulness.
  • The concept of “legitimate interest” was recognized as a limitation: an innocent party cannot affirm if there is no legitimate interest in performance beyond penalizing the breaching party.

Legal Principles

  • Upon repudiatory breach, the innocent party has the option to affirm the contract or accept repudiation and sue for damages.
  • Affirmation enables the innocent party to complete performance and sue for the contract price as a debt, provided no cooperation from the breaching party is required.
  • Courts will not revise contract terms based solely on perceived unfairness; the freedom of parties to contract is preserved.
  • The right to affirm and claim the price is subject to the existence of a legitimate interest; affirmation will be refused if unreasonable or solely punitive.
  • Dissenting opinions highlighted the importance of the duty to mitigate and the risk of wasted resources.

Conclusion

White and Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor established that, following anticipatory breach, an innocent party may affirm and perform the contract—claiming the full contract price—if performance does not require the defaulting party’s cooperation and a legitimate interest exists; however, the doctrine is subject to limitations to prevent unreasonable or punitive outcomes, as outlined by both the majority and dissenting judgments.

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