WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS
Bettini v Guy (1876) 1 QBD 183
Bettini contracted with Guy, director of the Italian Opera in London, to take the
part of first tenor in concerts and operas in theatres, halls and drawing rooms in
Great Britain and Ireland for the period 30 March 1875 – 13 July 1875. The contract
further provided that:



Bettini was not to sing out of the theatre except outside a radius of 50 miles
from London, without Guy’s written permission.
Bettini was to be in London “without fail at least six days before the
commencement of his engagement, for the purpose of rehearsals”.
Bettini was to be paid of £150 per month, payable monthly.
Because of illness, Bettini did not arrive in London until 28 March 1875. He missed
the rehearsals but he had recovered in time for the performance. Guy terminated
the contract. The question presented to the court was whether, as a matter of
law, Guy could terminate because there had been a breach of a term of the K.
HELD
If, on the other hand, the breach only partially affects it, then only damages
follow. In this case, P’s failure to show up for rehearsals only affected the first
few performances of a long-term contract. Thus the breach only partially affects
the rest of the contract, and only damages follow. The breach was only a breach
of a warranty
If the breach goes to the root of the contract (so that a failure to perform would
make the completion of the rest of the contract something completely different
from originally intended), then repudiation and damages follow. . Guy could not
repudiate the K, he could only get damages for the cost of the Hotel and
theatre rent for the rehearsals.
Poussard v Spiers and Pond (1876)
P was engaged to sing in an opera but was taken ill and unable to perform. She
missed the final rehearsal and the first four performances. The defendants were
required to find a replacement for her, but discovered that the only way that they
could do this was to offer another person the entire engagement. This they did,
and thus refused the services of P when she became well enough to perform.
HELD
P’s inability to perform on the first night was a breach of condition, despite it
being through circumstances beyond her control, because it went to the root of
the K. They had contracted with the P to perform the opera, and her inability to
perform the first four performances meant that her breach resulted in a contract
that was completely different from what was originally intended. D were entitled
to repudiate the K
Complete this table:
Facts
Bettini v Guy
 Bettini contracted to sing in
concerts and operas in
theatres, halls and drawing
rooms 30 March 1875 – 13
July 1875.




Poussard v Spiers and Pond
Bettini was not to sing out
of the theatre except
outside a radius of 50 miles
from London, without Guy’s
written permission.
Bettini was to be in London
“without fail at least six
days before the
commencement of his
engagement, for the
purpose of rehearsals”.
Bettini was to be paid of
£150 per month, payable
monthly.
Illness meant he missed
rehearsals, but was well in
time for first performance.
HELD
Guy could not repudiate the K, he
could only get damages for the
cost of the Hotel and theatre rent
for the rehearsals.
RATIO
If the breach only partially affects
the rest of the contract, only
damages follow. The breach was
only a breach of a warranty – a
less important term.
1. Using the information in the table write a legal definition for a warranty and a
condition.