Template:Event of default vs fundamental breach: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "===The subtle difference between an event of default and a fundamental breach of contract=== A '''fundamental breach of contract''' is a failure to perform its ter..." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
===The subtle difference between an [[event of default]] and a [[fundamental breach of contract]]=== | ===The subtle difference between an [[event of default]] and a [[fundamental breach of contract]]=== | ||
A '''[[fundamental breach of contract]]''' is a failure to perform its terms in such a way that deprives the other party of the basic benefit of the contract. This could be anything — like a duck, you know it when you see it — but beyond being an outright failure to perform one’s material obligations it need not, and logically cannot, be comprehensively articulated in the contract. | A '''[[fundamental breach of contract]]''' is a failure to perform its terms in such a way that deprives the other party of the basic benefit of the [[contract]]. This could be anything — like a duck, you know it when you see it — but beyond being an outright failure to perform one’s material obligations it need not, and logically cannot, be comprehensively articulated in the contract. | ||
An [[event of default]], on the other hand, ''is'' articulated, usually at [[Tedious|painful length]], in the contract, which then contains detailed provisions setting out what should happen, to whom, by when, if an [[event of default]] befalls either party. | An [[event of default]], on the other hand, ''is'' articulated, usually at [[Tedious|painful length]], in the contract, which then contains detailed provisions setting out what should happen, to whom, by when, if an [[event of default]] befalls either party. | ||
Now while the same set of circumstances might be an | Now while the same set of circumstances might be an [[event of default]] ''and'' a [[Fundamental breach|fundamental breach of contract]] — almost certainly will be, in fact — treating a case as an [[event of default]] is to see it as “infra-contractual action”,<ref>I just made that expression up, by the way</ref>, contemplated by and provided for ''within the four corners of the contract''; while treating it as a [[fundamental breach]] is thereby ''to cast the whole contract into the fire''. For what good are the promises in it, after all, if the other fellow won’t keep them? | ||
Thus alleging [[fundamental breach]] is to cancel the contract, ''with'' prejudice to your remaining rights under it, and to prostrate yourself at the feet of the [[Queen’s Bench Division]] for redress by way of damages, being the liquidated present value of those remaining rights, determined by reference to golden streams of the [[common law]] precedent, whose terms might not be quite as advantageous to you as those you might have asked for ''were you able to agree them in advance''. But these [[common law]] principles are ''about'' the contract, they are not rules ''of'' the contract. The [[contract]] itself it a smoldering husk. | Thus alleging [[fundamental breach]] is to cancel the contract, ''with'' prejudice to your remaining rights under it, and to prostrate yourself at the feet of the [[Queen’s Bench Division]] for redress by way of damages, being the liquidated present value of those remaining rights, determined by reference to golden streams of the [[common law]] precedent, whose terms might not be quite as advantageous to you as those you might have asked for ''were you able to agree them in advance''. But these [[common law]] principles are ''about'' the contract, they are not rules ''of'' the contract. The [[contract]] itself it a smoldering husk. | ||