Monday v Attorney General
Monday v Attorney General (Civil Appeal 16 of 2010) [2011] UGSC 33 (14 November 2011)
The Supreme Court held that the respondent did not specifically plead frustration as a defence nor as a ground of appeal, and failed to discharge the burden of proving frustration by destruction of the vehicle. The evidence showed only damage, not destruction, and the contract was not frustrated. State House retained constructive custody of the vehicle until it was released to a third party, and failed to issue notice of termination or return the vehicle, thus remaining liable for hire charges. The appellant took reasonable steps to mitigate his loss, and the trial judge erred in finding othe…
Source excerpt
- Contract Frustration
- Breach Of Contract
- Hire Of Chattels
- Burden Of Proof
- Damages Calculation
- Mitigation Of Loss