Contract; breach of contract; substantial performance; remedies for breach.
Facts: Hoenig contracted to paint Isaacs's apartment, and supply some furniture, for £750. After painting the apartment and supplying the furniture, Hoenig claimed payment in full. Isaacs complained that the work had been badly done. It cost £55 to have another workman rectify the defects. In view of the imperfect work, Isaacs paid only £400 to Hoenig. Hoenig sued Isaacs for the balance of the agreed price.
Issue: Was Isaacs obliged to pay the agreed price in full?
Decision: Isaacs was not obliged to pay the full price, but was only entitled to deduct the actual cost of the necessary repairs (£55).
Reason: Payment of the agreed price by Isaacs was due in exchange for Hoenig's performance of his obligations under the contract. Although Hoenig had not performed perfectly, the faults in his work were easily fixed at modest cost. In the circumstances, he had performed substantially.Where substantial performance has taken place, the failure to render complete performance, while still a breach of contract, will be treated as a breach of a warranty rather than a breach of a condition (unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise). The substantial performance must be accepted and paid for proportionately. Isaacs was therefore required to pay the agreed price, less the amount needed to rectify the defects.