You are on page 1of 3

Divisible contract:

Divisible contract is a type of contract in which each parties obligations are independent of
those of the other whereas each party can demand performance of duty from each other
without performing their own part. Example: contract of employment that is an employee i.e.
even if the payment of the employee is pending the employee performs his job.

The rule with divisible contract is that the party which covers one or more areas of the
contract is entitled to get paid for the fulfilment of that art irrespective of the parts of the
contracts which are not performed. It is also known as severable contract.

The nature of goods and services underlying the contract plays a big role in determining
whether the contract is divisible or not. A severability clause may be included in a contract
which is an agreement which is made up of several separate contracts between the same
parties such as series of sales etc. This implies that breach of one of the separate contracts is
not a breach of the remaining of the overall contract and is not an excuse for the other party
to refuse to honour any separate part of the contract which has not been breached.

And also if any provision of the severability contract is invalid, illegal or unenforceable or is
in conflict with the law then the remaining provisions of the contract will be unaffected and
untouched, that means the invalidity or illegality of one provision of the contract will not
invalidate or effect other provisions of the contract.

But if the term of the contract which is violated is one of the terms which was regarded
essential to its continued existence as a binding agreement while the contract was being
formed then the performance of duty as per the contract by the other party who has suffered
due to the violation of the essential term of the contract can be refused legally and if not
refused by the party then the obligation to perform is unaffected. Therefore it is not the nature
of the contract but the nature of the breach that controls the contract.

In some of the leading cases the distinction has always been kept clear that is if the breach is
of an essential term of a contract then the contract is entire and if the breach is of a non-
essential term of the contract then the contract is divisible.
CASE LAWS

A case of a distinct contract is Roberts v Havelock (1832). A shipwright consented to repair a


ship. The contract did not explicitly state when installment was to be made. He picked not to
go ahead with the work. It was held that the shipwright was will undoubtedly entire the
repairs before asserting some installment. He was qualified for installment as each entire
repair was a different part of the contract.

A case of a whole contract is Sumpter v Hedges (1898). The offended party consented to erect
upon the litigant's property two house and stables for 565. He did part of the work to the
estimation of about 333 and after that surrendered the contract. The respondent finished the
structures. The Court held that the offended party couldn't recuperate the estimation of the
work done, as he had surrendered the contract. He was not qualified for anything since the
litigant had not acknowledged the part execution or counteracted execution and the contract
was not detachable.

Simpson v. Croppin (1872), under a contract to supply from six thousand to eight thousand
tons of coal to be taken by the purchaser's wagons from the dealer's colliery I the equivalent
month to month amounts for twelve months, the purchasers sent wagons for as it were one
hundred and fifty tons amid the primary months, and it was held that such disappointment
with respect to the purchaser did not give the vendor the privilege to disavow the whole
contract.

Hoare v. Rennie(1859), Hundredth contract was one for the offer A hundred and sixty-seven
tons of banish iron to be transported from Sweden in June, July, August and September, and
in about equivalent segments every month, at a specific value payable on conveyance. The
June shipment made by the vendor was off just twenty tons, furthermore, the court held that
the inability to transport around one-quarter of the iron, as concurred, advocated the purchase
in declining to get the twenty tons sent and pardoned him from the commitment to
acknowledge the build-up of the iron.

Mersey Co., v. Naylor (1884), the contract was for the offer of five thousand tons of steel to
be conveyed in regularly scheduled payments of one thousand tons, and the purchasers,
acting under the incorrect exhortation of their specialists defaulted in the installment for one
portion when due. The court held that such disappointment to make installment for one
portion did not pardon the vendor from continuing with the conveyance of consequent
portions.

You might also like