« 上一頁繼續 »
4. On or about the 20th of December, 1876, the plaintiff, at Breach of the defendants' request, agreed that the time for the completion contract to of the second steamer should be extended by a period of six weeks. deliver
5. The plaintiff says that all conditions were performed and ships. fulfilled and all things happened and all times elapsed necessary to entitle the plaintiff to have the said vessels built and delivered in accordance with the said contracts respectively, and the plaintiff was at all times ready and willing and able to perform his part of the said contracts respectively, yet the defendants did not build and deliver the said vessels respectively to the plaintiff, and wholly refused to build and deliver the same, and repudiated their said contracts respectively, and wrongfully exonerated the plaintiff from the performance thereof.
6. By reason of the premises, the plaintiff lost the use of the said vessels, and the profits which he would have made from a performance by the defendants of their contracts, and was unable, except at much higher prices than the said contract prices, to buy and contract for other steamers in place of the said steamers, which were to have been of peculiar construction under the said contracts and specifications, and lost the expenses to which he had been put for specifications and models, &c., for the said vessel, and for superintending the construction of the said vessels for a certain time, and certain other expenses, and incurred heavy expenses in respect of certain steam cranes supplied by the plaintiff for the said vessels, and which he was compelled to resell at a loss, and was also compelled to incur expense in cancelling certain contracts for certain other cranes ordered by the plaintiff for the said vessels, and was otherwise injured and damnified. Particulars of the said expenses have been furnished by the plaintiff to the defendants.
The plaintiff claims £10,000 damages.
Action for Breach of Agreement to make a Steam Roller by a
certain Day (time being of the essence of the contract), and
claiming Amount agreed for Liquidated Damages. 1. The plaintiff is, &c.
2. On the 8th of February, 1877, by an agreement bearing that date made between the plaintiff and the defendant, the defen
Breach of dant agreed to make a steam roller and deliver the same at the agreement plaintiff's said place of business on or before the 30th of June, where time of the 1877, and the plaintiff agreed to pay, after the delivery of the essence of
said steam roller, and on approval thereof by one J. E. Bright, a mechanical engineer, the price or sum of £1500 ; and it was further agreed by the said agreement that time should be regarded as an essential ingredient of the same, and that if the defendant should not make and deliver the said steam roller on or before the said 30th of June, then the plaintiff should be
entitled to claim from and be paid by the defendant the sum Claim for of £4000 as liquidated damages, which sum was agreed on as liquidated damages.
the loss and damage which would be sustained by the plaintiff by a default to make and deliver the said steam roller by the defendant.
3. All conditions were performed and all things happened and all times elapsed necessary to entitle the plaintiff to a performance of his agreement by the defendant.
4. The defendant did not manufacture and deliver the said steam roller on or before the said 30th of June, 1877.
The plaintiff claims £4000 liquidated damages.
(The above may be varied by the omission of the clause relating to the stipulation as to time being of the essence of the contract, and varying the allegation of damages as follows:
The plaintiff was, by the said default of the defendant, unable to enter on the execution of a contract for the making of certain roads which the plaintiff had entered into at the time of making his said agreement with the defendant, and of which the defendant had full notice; and it was a term of the said agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant that in the event of non-delivery in time to enable the plaintiff to carry out his contract, the defendant should be liable for any loss occasioned by such default (a).
Action for Breach of Contract to contribute to Expenses of
forming a Company. 1. The plaintiff's entered into an agreement, dated with one J. H., whereby the latter agreed to use his best endea
Breach of contract to contribute to expense of floating a company.
(a) See Mayne on Damages, 3rd ed. 24, 33.
vours to procure from the A. Republic a concession to the Breach of plaintiffs and their assigns for the exportation and working of contract to
contribute guano on the eastern coast of P. and the adjacent islands, such
to the exconcession to be transferred to a limited company to be penses of
floating a formed, and the profits arising from the transfer to be divided
company. among the parties to the said agreement.
2. For the purpose of meeting the expenses of carrying out such agreement, the plaintiffs formed a syndicate, of which the defendant became a member.
3. The defendant agreed with the plaintiffs to contribnte and pay to the plaintiffs, as a share of such expenses, the sum of £1000, or any amount that might be necessary as his share not exceeding £1000, and was to receive a proportionate share of the sums which might be received in shares or otherwise by the plaintiffs from the proposed company in respect of the said transfer of the said concession.
4. An agreement was entered into, dated 6th May, 1872, between the said J. H., the plaintiffs, and a trustee, for the said proposed company to be called the R. P. G. T. Co., Limited, whereby it was agreed that such company should be formed with a nominal capital of £30,000, divided into 300 shares of £100 each, of which 100 fully paid-up shares should be allotted to the said J. H., 100 shares, also fully paid up, to the plaintiffs or their nominees, and 100 should be subscribed for as ordinary shares, and that the said proposed concession should be obtained for and on behalf of the said Company.
5. The said Company was duly incorporated under the Companies Acts, 1862 and 1867, on the 10th May, 1872, and 100 fully paid up shares therein were placed at the disposal of the plaintiffs, as evidenced by an agreement in writing duly registered, dated 13th May, 1872.
6. In pursuance of the agreement mentioned in the 3rd paragraph, the plaintiffs nominated the defendant to be the holder of ten of the said 100 fully paid-up shares, being the proportion to which he was entitled under the said agreement in respect of his promised payment of £1000, and the defendant accepted an allotment of the said shares and became the holder thereof.
7. The defendant's share of the expenses referred to in the
Breach of 3rd paragraph amounted to £1000, the whole of which was contract to required for such expenses. contribute to the ex
8. The defendant, on or about the 28th August, 1871, paid penses of
the plaintiffs £350, and on or about the 6th March, 1872, floating a company.
£150 ; but, although all conditions have been performed and all times have elapsed and all things have been done and happened necessary to entitle the plaintiffs to be paid the whole of the said £1000, yet the defendant has not paid to the plaintiffs
the remaining £500, nor any part thereof. Claim for 9. Accounts have been rendered by the plaintiffs to the defencompound dant half-yearly, charging him with the said £500 and interest
thereon, with half-yearly rests, which by agreement and by the
The plaintiffs claim :
annum from the 30th June, 1877 (the date of the
Statement of Defence. 1. The defendant denies the allegations in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the statement of claim. The facts as to the matters therein referred to are as follows : In the year 1871, the defendant agreed to become a member of a syndicate then being formed by the plaintiffs for the purpose of sending certain ships to load guano ator
near the coast of P., upon the express condition, amongst others, that the defendant should not be liable to any extent beyond the sum of £500.
2. The defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 4 of the statement of claim. If any of the matters therein alleged be true, the defendant had never any notice or knowledge thereof.
3. The defendant denies the allegations of paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 of the statement of claim. If any of the matters therein alleged are true, the defendant never had any notice or knowledge thereof.
4. The payments of £350 and £150 referred to in the 8th paragraph of the statement of claim were made in pursuance of the agreement mentioned in paragraph 1 of this defence, and not otherwise. Except as aforesaid, the defendant denies the Defence. allegations of paragraph 8 of the statement of claim.
5. The defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 9 of the statement of claim.
6. The alleged cause of action did not accrue within six years Statute of before the commencement of this action.
Reply. 1. The plaintiffs join issue upon the statement of defence.
2. In further reply to paragraph 6 of the statement of defence, the plaintiffs say that within six years before the commencement of this action, the defendant made an acknowledgment by part payment, and by a letter signed by the defendant, that the plaintiff's cause of action was in existence and unsatisfied.
Breach of Promise of Marriage (a).
Claim by Plaintiff for Breach of Promise to Marry. 1. The plaintiff resides at and is a spinster. The Breach of defendant is a law stationer in Street.
promise to marry.
(a) A promise to marry on which an action is based, need not be Promise evidenced by any writing, and may be proved entirely by parol, though to marry it is well to remember that by the 32 & 33 Vict. c. 68, s. 2, it is need not be provided that “no plaintiff in any action for breach of promise of mar- evidenced riage shall recover a verdict unless his or her testimony shall be corro, hy writing. borated by some other material evidence in support of such promise." As to what amounts to corroboration within this section, see Bessela v.
CorroboraStern, 46 L. J. 467. An infant may sue in such an action, but is not
tion of liable to be sued. (Holt v. Ward, 2 Str. 937.) The action falls within plaintiff the rule actio personalis moritur cum persona, and cannot be maintained essential. by an executor or administrator. (Chamberlain v. Williamson, 2 M. & S. 408.)
The averments in the claim are generally very simple. There is first a Averments statement of the agreement to marry, and then in another paragraph a in the statement of a breach of such promise, as that the defendant had married statement another, or that the time agreed on for the marriage had elapsed, and the of claim. defendant refused to complete the contract, or that a reasonable time had elapsed. The claim will also generally contain an averment as to the anguish endured by the plaintiff, and the loss and damage she has suffered, but this averment is not essential. The jury in assessing damages Measure of may take into account the position in life and means of the defendant, damages. and also the injury to the plaintiff's feelings. (Smith v. Wood fine, 1 C. B. N. S. 660 ; Berry v. Da Costa, L. R. 1 C. P. 331.)