Contract Law Assignment: Breach, Remedies, and Liability Analysis

This assignment solution analyzes three scenarios involving contract law principles. The first scenario examines a contract between Elton Beeber and KPI, and KPI and MLH. It explores the doctrine of frustration due to a fire at the coliseum, determining liability for breach of contract and the availability of remedies like damages. The second scenario focuses on express repudiation of contract by Elton with LVP, exploring remedies such as injunction and specific performance, and considering the impact of Elton's age. The third scenario addresses economic duress in a contract between MLH and KPI, determining the validity of the contract and the available remedies. The fourth scenario addresses vicarious liability in a concert setting, determining whether KPI is liable for Elton's actions.

Contract Law 1
Answer 1
On 1st January 2017, Elton Beeber signed the contract with the KPI in context of making
performance at the concert held in St. Catharine on 1st December 2017. On 15th January KPI
entered into another contract with the MLH in terms of booking the coliseum of St. Catharine for
the performance doing by Elton. In terms of booking the coliseum, KPI decided the booking
amount of $100,000 and from this amount $50,000 is already as deposit to the MLH. KPI further
pays $50,000 as the advanced fee to Elton in context of his fee of $100,000.
However, large fire captured the coliseum on the evening of 21st November 2017 and the main
reason behind this fire is the negligence of security guard appointed at the coliseum. This fire
damage large part of the coliseum and because of this concert cannot be preceded. MLH
informed the KPI that they can conduct the concert after the 1st February 2018, but this does not
happen because Elton clearly denied rescheduling its dates. Later, Elton demand balance amount
of his fees that are $50,000, but KPI stated that Elton should refund the deposit because he does
not perform.
Many ways are there through which discharge of contract is take place such as discharge of
contract by frustration. Doctrine of frustration is established at the time when it is not possible
for the contracting party to perform the contract because of the reasons which are external in
nature or not in the control of the party. Remedy for frustration allow the parties to get free from
their future obligations under the contract without performing that obligations.
Doctrine of frustration have some exceptions also such as self-induced frustration, and as per this
frustration of the contract occurred because of the parties own conduct or negligence, or because
of the conduct or negligence of any person for which they are responsible. In this situation,

Contract law 2
doctrine of frustration cannot be used as defense by any party and any non-performance of
contract will be considered as the major breach of contract.
Major breach of contract occurred in case any important or complete contract is not performed
by the contracting party, and because of which actual purpose of the contract is defeated.
Different remedies are available to the non-breaching party in case of contract is breached by
another party such as damages and equitable remedies. In terms of claiming the damages, these
two requirements must be complied-
 Loss to the non-breaching party must be resulted from the breach.
 Actions must be taken to mitigate the damages.
In this case, damages can be claimed by the KPI against the actions of the MLH and it is not
possible for the MLH to use the defense of doctrine of frustration. MLH cannot use this doctrine
as defense because this fire falls under the act of self-induced frustration, as fire occurred
because of the negligence of security guard. Therefore, in this case doctrine of frustration cannot
be used as defense by any party and any non-performance of contract will be considered as the
major breach of contract.
Kpi can file suit against the MLH in terms of recovering the $ 50,000 they give them as deposit
and $500,000 in the form of damages suffered by the party for the breach of contract.
However, situations are different in case of contract signed between the Elton and KPI. In this
case, KPI can use the defense of doctrine of frustration because contract is not performed
because of the factors which are external in nature and not in the control of parties. Doctrine of
frustration is established at the time when it is not possible for the contracting party to perform
the contract because of the reasons which are external in nature or not in the control of the party.

Contract law 3
Remedy for frustration allow the parties to get free from their future obligations under the
contract without performing that obligations. Therefore, Elton needs to repay the $50,000 to the
KPI which he received as deposit from the organization.
Answer 2
Express repudiation of contract is considered as one way through which contract is breached by
the party, which means, party to the contract expressly deny performing the obligations under the
contract or conduct such actions which automatically make it impossible to perform the contract.
In other words, this breach occurred at the time when negligence is conducted by the party in
terms of making the performance related to the contract completely impossible. For this breach,
different remedies are available to the innocent party.
In this case, contract with the LPV is breached by the Elton through the way of express
repudiation. Elton stated that he is going on vacation to the St. Catharine and this result in the
negligence is conducted by the party in terms of making the performance related to the contract
completely impossible. Therefore, this action is considered as breach of contract and following
remedies can be seek by the LPV from the Court-
 Injunction can be taken by the LPV In terms of restricting the Elton from leaving the
Vegas, and injunction is equitable remedy which is available in case of breach of
contract.
 Specific performance is the another equitable remedy which can be seek by the non-
breaching party in case of breach of contract, and because of this LPV can force the Elton
to perform the concert in the Vegas.

Contract law 4
 Injunction to restrict the Elton for performing the concert in St. Catharine cannot be
granted, this remedy is not available in case of breach of contract.
 Damages is the another remedy which is given to the non-breaching party in case of
breach of contract, as this remedy is available to the LPV.
Situations are different in case of contract with minor, as minor in not capable to enter into the
contract. Rules related to repudiation of contract are different in case of contract signed with the
minor-
 In case benefits related to the contract is accepted by the minor then it becomes
impossible for him to repudiate the contract.
 If contract is repudiated by the minor then such repudiation must be done because of the
loss of advantage or incapacity.
However, both the rules fail to effect the present situation because Elton repudiate the contract
for performing the concert in St. Catharine, and this mean that this contract is not repudiate
because of the loss of advantage or incapacity. Therefore, no situation changed in case Elton is
16 years old.
Answer 3
Duress is the situation which occurred when any one party related to the contract entered into the
contract because of the illegal pressure made by another party related to the contract. In other
words, dominance party of the contract makes pressure of illegal nature on the weaker party to
sign the contract. Duress mainly includes the threat in terms of property and life, and sometimes
it includes the financial threat also which is known as economic duress.

Contract law 5
Economic duress is the type of duress in which financial pressure is included by the dominance
party to enter into contract with the weaker party. Remedy is given to the weaken party if
contract is signed under duress and that is, contract is voidable at the option of the weaken party.
It must be noted that economic duress also falls under the category of duress.
In this case, new contract of additional fee of $100,000 signed between MLH and Kpi is the
contract which is signed under economic duress. Financial pressure is imposed by the dominance
party to enter into contract on the weaker party, because of which this contract is affected by
duress.
Remedy is given to the KPI because contract is signed under duress and that is, contract is
voidable at the option of the KPI. Therefore, claim of KPI to refund the additional fee of
$100,000 is right and become successful in their claim.
Answer 4
Vicarious liability is the concept under which one person is held liable for the actions of another
person, and in case of workplace law employer can be held liable for acts and omissions of its
employees. In other words, if any employee commit any tort then employer is vicariously held
liable towards the third party for that wrong.
In the present case, Elton committed the tort by lip syncing on the pre-recorded songs in the
concert, as he is not singing any song which is related to his dancing routine. Because of this
ticket holders take action against the KPI for the acts of the Elton and seeking full refund of their
money.

Contract law 6
In this case also KPI is vicariously liable for the acts committed by the Elton, because employer
can be held liable for acts and omissions of its employees. In other words, if any employee
commit any tort then employer is vicariously held liable towards the third party for that wrong.
Therefore, ticket holders hold the right to file claim against the KPI for the actions of Elton.