Breach of Contract. See Sale-Stock-Work and Labour. Action for Breach of Agreement by Defendants to make a Action for breach of an agree 1. The plaintiffs are a Limited Company, and are the owners of a dry dock at R., and at the time hereinafter mentioned had agreed with the owners of the steamer "Rio Tinto" to effect ment certain repairs to that vessel. The defendants are brass and claiming iron founders carrying on business at D. 2. In or about the month of March, 1877, it was agreed by and between the plaintiffs and the defendants that the defendants, for a certain sum to be paid them by the plaintiffs, should make and cast on effectively and in a workmanlike manner a new brass liner to the propeller shaft of the said vessel, and should make a new brass stern bush for the same, and that the said liner and stern bush should be of good and suitable materials, and reasonably fit for the purposes for which they were intended. 3. At the time of making the said agreement the defendants well knew that in case the said liner or bush should be unfit for the purpose for which they were intended, the owners of the said vessel would be unable to use the said vessel, and would sustain great losses in consequence thereof, and that the plaintiffs would be responsible to the said owners in respect of such losses (a). 4. The defendants, however, did not make or cast on effectively or in a workmanlike manner a new brass liner to the propeller shaft of the said vessel, or make a new brass stern bush for the same of good and suitable materials and reasonably fit for the purposes for which they were intended; but in breach of their said contract, the defendants made and cast on a liner to the said propeller shaft and made a stern bush for the same which were of bad and unsuitable materials and wholly unfit for the purposes for which they were intended, and the defendants made and cast on the said liner ineffectively and in an unworkmanlike manner. 5. By reason of the defendants' breaches of contract as afore (a) As to the sufficiency of this allegation, see Mayne on Damages, 3rd ed. 24 to 33. special damage. Action for said, the said liner and stern bush became and were wholly breach of an agreement claiming special damage. Breach of contract to build and deliver ships. useless, and the owners of the said vessel were compelled to expend, and did expend, a large sum in replacing the same and making good the damage occasioned by the said breaches of contract, and lost and were deprived of the use of the said vessel for a long period, and the plaintiffs became and were and are responsible to the said owners of the said vessel for the losses and damages aforesaid, and became liable to pay to the said owners the costs of an action brought against the plaintiffs by the said owners for the recovery of the said losses and damages, and were compelled to incur and incurred costs in defending the said action, and the defendants became and were and are liable to the plaintiffs for the losses, damages, and costs aforesaid, and to indemnify the plaintiffs against the same. 6. The plaintiffs also say that they defended the said action for the benefit of and at the request of the defendants, and are entitled to recover and to be indemnified against the losses, damages, and costs aforesaid, and to be repaid the moneys expended by them as moneys paid by them for the defendants at their request. 7. The defendants have not paid the said losses, damages, and costs, or any part thereof. The plaintiffs claim £1000 damages. Action for Breach of Contract to build and deliver Ships. 1. The plaintiff is a shipowner, carrying on business at L., and the defendants are shipbuilders at H., and at the times hereinafter mentioned, carried on business under the style or firm of E. W. & Co. 2. On or about the 5th of October, 1876, a contract was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants, which was in the words and figures following: [A contract to build two iron screw-steamers for the plaintiff is here set out.] 3. On or about the 8th November, 1876, the plaintiff and defendants entered into another contract for the sale by the defendants to the plaintiff of a second iron screw-steamship, the terms of which were, so far as is material to this action, substantially the same as those contained in the said contract herein before set out. build and 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 where time of the essence of the contract. 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, 1877, and the plaintiff agreed to pay, after the delivery of the 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 of £4000 as liquidated damages, which sum was agreed on as 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. Claim for liquidated damages. Breach of contract to contribute to expense of floating a company. 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 plaintiffs entered into an agreement, dated with one J. H., whereby the latter agreed to use his best endea (a) See Mayne on Damages, 3rd ed. 24, 33. contribute to the ex 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 guano on the eastern coast of P. and the adjacent islands, such concession to be transferred to a limited company to be formed, and the profits arising from the transfer to be divided 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 contribute 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 plaintiff's 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 penses of floating a company. |