(c) That's wrong. 

You were asked to select the statement for which Hoenig v Isaacs [1952]  2 All ER 176  provides authority.

Hoenig v Isaacs is authority for the statement that, if performance of a contract is ‘substantially’ close to complete performance, it must be accepted by the non-defaulting party and paid for to the extent it has been carried out.

Hoenig v Isaacs is not authority for the statement that complete performance rather than ‘substantial’ performance of a contract is required and anything less than complete performance may be rejected by the non-defaulting party and no payment made.

Hoenig v Isaacs is not authority for the statement that, if there is partial performance of a contract rather than ‘complete’ or ‘substantial’ performance, and that performance gives a benefit to the non-defaulting party, the performance must be accepted and paid for to the extent it has been carried out.

Give yourself no marks for this answer.

Go to the next question...