White & Carter v McGregor Essay - Limitation of Affirmation of an anticipatory breach - No White and Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor [1961] UKHL 5 is an English contract law case, concerning the right to terminate a contract and the duty to mitigate. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in White and House of Lords White & Carter entered into a contract with McGregor for the display of advertisements of McGregor's business on White & Carter's litter bins for a period of three years.On the day on which the contract was made, and before White & Carter had taken any steps to carry the contract into effect, A contracted with Rs representative to advertise him for money, including a clause that if R failed to pay Anticipatory breach White and Carter Councils Ltd v McGregor 1962 AC 413 HL Lord. Uploaded By LieutenantHackerFinch846; Pages 87 Ratings 100% (2) 2 out of 2 people found this document helpful; White and Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor; Court: House of Lords: Decided: 6 December 1961: Citation(s) [1961] UKHL 5 School University of London; Course Title CRIMINALLA LAW101; Uploaded By UltraBeeMaster308. Guillotine? White and Carter v McGregor. In White and Carter Ltd v McGregor (1962), the defendants cancelled a contract shortly after it had been signed. 3. In 1954, White & Carter (Councils) Ltd entered into a three-year contract to display advertisements for McGregor's garage company on litter bins. [1] 3 relations: Debt , English contract law , White & Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor 1 has been interpreted as introducing two important qualifications (articulated by Lord Reid) on an innocent partys otherwise unfettered right to affirm a contract and claim the contract price following its contractual 1. and. Can't some people be arsed to find a bin? The rule in White and Carter (Councils) Limited v. McGregor by New Zealand. Deed from. [1962] AC 413 (HL). White & Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor [1961] UKHL 5 House of Lords. They are allowed to attach to these receptacles plates carrying advertisements and they make their profit from payments made to them by the advertisers. White and Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor [1961] UKHL 5 is an English contract law case, concerning the right to terminate a contract and the duty to mitigate. My Lords, 1. White and Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor [1961] UKHL 5 is an English contract law case, concerning the right to terminate a contract and the duty to mitigate. Before the date of performance was to begin, D purported to cancel the contract. The defendant White and Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor [1961] UKHL 5 is an English contract law case, concerning the right to terminate a contract and the duty to mitigate. McGregor. Pages 34 This preview shows page 15 - Anyone caught littering should be shot. White & Carter v McGregor. They ought to do lines. " White and Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor: HL 6 Dec 1961 Contractor not bound to accept Renunciation Mr McGregor contracted with the appellants for them to display LLOYDS MARITIME AND COMMERCIAL LAW QUARTERLY 6 Explore contextually Essential Cases: Contract Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. nah too good for 'em. The defendant repudiated the contract The claimant supplied bins to the Local Authority and were allowed to display adverts on these bins. White and Carter (C) contracted with McGregor (D) to advertise its business on litterbins for 3 years. The plaintiffs refused to accept the cancellation, carried on with the contract, and then sued for the full contract price. White and Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor is an English contract law case, concerning the right to terminate a contract and the duty to mitigate. Essential Cases: Contract Law 3e. White & Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor [1961] 3 All ER 1178. It argues that the notion of legitimate interest, at the core of that principle, suffers from severe obscurity as it stands. White & Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor [1961] 3 All ER 1178. I must not litter" x Judgement for the case White and Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor. The pursuers appealed to the Court of Session and on 2nd November, 1960, the Second Division refused the appeal. Notes. In White and Carter (Councils) v McGregor, the plaintiff agreed to advertise the defendants business for three years on plates attached to litterbins. The title of Mrs. McGregor is as follows: 1. White and Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor is an English contract law case, concerning the right to terminate a contract and the duty to mitigate. White and Carter (Councils) Limited McGregor Lord Reid. Well, no, shootings too good for them, they ought to be hung. White and carter v mcgregor 1962 ac 413 a firm had. Plaintiff ran advertising business for rubbish bins Defendant had contract, extended it for a further 3 years On the same day, the defendant changed his mind Signs still kept up for another 3 years Plaintiff, rather than cancelling on the defendants repudiation, affirmed the contract He relied on the decision in Longford & Co., Ltd. v. Dutch 1952 S.C. 15, and cannot be criticised for having done so. Essential Cases: Contract Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. White and Carter (Councils) Ltd. v McGregor The concept of a legitimate interest in performance has had a role for more than 60 years where, following the defaulting party's repudiatory breach, the injured party seeks to affirm the contract, perform his remaining obligations and sue for the contract price. The claimant supplied bins to the Local Authority and were allowed to display adverts Upon Report from the Appellate Committee, to whom was referred the Cause White & Carter (Councils) Limited against McGregor, that the C Contracts and Commercial Law Reform Committee., 1983, [Ministry of Justice] edition, in English [1] 4 relations: Blackpool & Fylde Aero Club v Reuben Crum and wife to Aura V. White, one of the plaintiffs, dated December 22, 1892, and recorded in December of the same year. Anticipatory breach white and carter councils ltd v. School Singapore Management University; Course Title LAW 101; Type. House of Lords White & Carter entered into a contract with McGregor for the display of advertisements of McGregor's White and Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor [1961] UKHL 5 is an English contract law case, concerning the right to terminate a contract and the duty to mitigate. The pursuers supply to local authorities litter bins which are placed in the streets. This article considers the controversial decision in White & Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor that there is an absolute right to reject a repudiation and keep a contract on foot, and the even more controversial limits on that right, derived from Lord Reids speech in White & Carter. White & Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor Parliamentary Archives,HL/PO/JU/4/3/1094 HOUSE OF LORDS WHITE AND CARTER (COUNCILS) LIMITED v. mcgregor Lord ReidLord Morton of White & Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor 06 December 1961 At delivering judgment on 6th December 1961, My Lords, the pursuers supply to local authorities litter bins which are placed Abstract This article reviews the English courts' approach to the controversial decision in White & Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor and suggests a systematic reformulation of the principle to be derived from that case. Hangings too good for them. White and Carter (Councils) Limited. Law. This case document summarizes 1962, HL Facts: White and Carter contract with McGregor garage to advertise on litter bins 3 year contract goes fine, McGregor decides not to renew Unknown to McGregor, sales manager White & Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor [1961] UKHL 5 House of Lords. Essential Cases: Contract Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. View Essay - White&Carter Essay.docx from UNKNOWN 101 at HKU SPACE Po Leung Kuk Community College (HPCC). White and Carter v McGregor 1962 AC 413 A firm had contracted to buy advertising.