Johnson v Agnew [1980] AC 367

Key Points

  • Termination is prospective - it wipes away future obligations under the contract but does not render the contract void ab initio 
  • Obtaining an order for specific performance does not forfeit the right to terminate and sue for breach
  • Damages in contract law aim to put the innocent party, so far as money can do so, in the same position as if the contract had been performed
  • The date of assessment is not necessarily fixed at the date of breach; the court can vary it when another date better reflects the claimant’s losses

Facts

  • The Johnsons (C) contracted to sell their farm to Mrs Agnew (D), but she refused to complete
  • C obtained an order for specific performance against D but it was never carried out
  • The mortgagees sold the farm but realised an insufficient amount to discharge C’s debt
  • C sued D for breach of contract
  • D argued that C had lost its right to sue for breach when it elected to seek specific performance

Membership Required

Sign up to read the rest and gain access to the following features:

2000+ members-only CasesArticle SummariesNotesLegislation AnalysesModel AnswersFlashcardsSQE MCQsLLB MCQsAI ChatDark ModeShop discount
Join Now

Already a member? Log in here