Misplaced Pages

White & Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

White and Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor
CourtHouse of Lords
Decided6 December 1961
Citations[1961] UKHL 5
[1962] AC 413[REDACTED]
Court membership
Judges sittingLord Reid, Lord Morton of Henryton, Lord Tucker, Lord Keith of Avonholm, Lord Hodson
Keywords
Contract, remedies

White and Carter (Councils) Ltd. v McGregor [1961] UKHL 5 is a Scottish and English contract law case, concerning the right to terminate a contract and the duty to mitigate.

Facts

In 1954, White & Carter (Councils) Ltd. entered into a three-year contract to display advertisements for McGregor's garage company on litter bins. In 1957, with the contract set to expire, McGregor's sales manager, Mr Ward, renewed the contract; however, later that day, when the company learnt of this, they informed White & Carter that Ward had no authority to enter into such a contract, writing to them saying:

Dear Sirs, we regret that our Mr. Ward signed an order today continuing the lamp post advertisements for a further period of 3 years. He was unaware that our proprietor Mr. McGregor does not wish to continue this form of advertisement. Please therefore cancel the order.

White & Carter (Councils) Ltd. refused cancellation and displayed the ads, and brought an action for the price.

Judgment

The House of Lords held, 3 to 2, that the claimants could recover the contract price and were not obliged to take steps to mitigate their loss because there was an automatic claim in debt. There was no obligation to accept the breach, even though it was unfortunate that the claimants had 'saddled themselves with an unwanted contract causing an apparent waste of time and money'. Because it was a claim in debt and not damages, the mitigation rule had no application.

Lord Hodson said it was not a discretionary remedy, and a 'novel equitable doctrine that a party was not to be held to his contract unless the court in a given instance thought it reasonable so to do' was not going to be introduced.

The dissenting judges held that the claimants had failed to mitigate their loss.

See also

Performance and breach cases
Cutter v Powell EWHC KB J 13
Sumpter v Hedges 1 QB 673
Hoenig v Isaacs EWCA Civ 6
Bolton v Mahadeva EWCA Civ 5
Workers Trust v Dojap Investments Ltd UKPC 7
Union Eagle Ltd v Golden Achievement Ltd UKPC 5
Dunlop Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage Co Ltd UKHL 1
Murray v Leisureplay plc EWCA Civ 963
UTCCR 1999 (SI 1999/2083) Sch 2(1)(d)-(e)
Southcott Estates Inc. v. Toronto Catholic District School Board, 2012 SCC 51, 2 SCR 675
see Remedies in English law
Termination cases
Boone v Eyre (1777) 1 H Bl 273
Hochster v De La Tour [1853] EWHC J72 (QB)
Bettini v Gye (1876) 1 QBD 183[REDACTED]
Poussard v Spiers and Pond (1876) 1 QBD 410[REDACTED]
Arcos Ltd v EA Ronaasen & Son [1933] AC 470[REDACTED]
The Hong Kong Fir [1961] EWCA Civ 7
White & Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor
L Schuler AG v Wickman Machine Tool Sales Ltd [1973] UKHL 2
Bunge Corp v Tradax Export SA
The Alaskan Trader 1 All ER 129
Rice v Great Yarmouth BC (2001) 3 LGLR 4
Woodar Ltd v Wimpey Construction UK Ltd [1980] 1 WLR 277[REDACTED]

Notes

References

Categories:
White & Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor Add topic