The case of Hochster v. De La Tour is a foundational decision in English contract law concerning the doctrine of anticipatory breach. The Queen’s Bench Court in 1853 dealt with the issue of whether a party to a contract can claim damages for breach of contract before the date when performance under the contract was due, in circumstances where the other party clearly repudiates the contract in advance. The judgement established key principles that continue to guide the approach to anticipatory repudiation and the remedies available to the innocent party.
Facts of Hochster v. De La Tour
In the case of Hochster v. De La Tour, the claimant, Mr Hochster, entered into a contract with the defendant, Mr De La Tour, to act as a courier. The terms of the contract stipulated that Hochster would accompany De La Tour on a three-month tour across Europe, starting from 1 June 1852. The contract was executory, meaning that no obligations had yet become live, as the start date was set for the future.
However, on 11 May 1852—some three weeks before the contract was due to commence—De La Tour informed Hochster in writing that his services were no longer required. This was a clear declaration that the defendant intended not to perform the contract when the time came.
Upon receiving this communication, Hochster took immediate legal action by bringing a claim for damages on 22 May 1852, alleging anticipatory breach of contract. The defendant contended that no breach had occurred, arguing that a breach could only take place once the performance date arrived and that it was premature for the claimant to sue prior to that date.
Legal Issues
The central issues that arose in Hochster v. De La Tour were twofold:
- Whether the defendant’s declaration in advance of the contract start date, indicating an intention not to perform, constituted a breach of contract (anticipatory breach).
- Whether the claimant was entitled to bring an action for damages before the contractual performance was due to begin.
Hochster v. De La Tour Judgement
The Queen’s Bench, presided over by Lord Campbell, Chief Justice, delivered a decisive ruling in favour of the claimant, Mr Hochster. The Court held that the defendant’s clear communication of refusal to perform amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract, despite the contract’s obligations being scheduled for a future date.
The Court recognised that when parties enter into a contract for future performance, there is an implied promise that neither party will act in a way that prevents or prejudices the performance of the contract. In this instance, De La Tour’s renunciation of the contract before the start date was considered a breach of this implied promise.
Importantly, the Court rejected the defendant’s argument that the claimant must wait until the commencement of the contract before suing. It was held that the innocent party is entitled to treat the repudiation as an immediate breach and therefore may bring an action for damages without delay.
This principle was summarised by Lord Campbell in the judgement, who emphasised that requiring the innocent party to wait until the date performance is due would be “wasteful” and unnecessary. Such a requirement would force the claimant to prepare for an event that would never take place, causing needless expense and uncertainty.
Consequently, the Court awarded damages to Mr Hochster.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Hochster v. De La Tour (1853) stands as a landmark decision affirming that an anticipatory breach of contract is actionable immediately upon notification of repudiation, even if the contract’s performance date lies in the future. The case sets out important protections for parties to contracts and ensures that they need not suffer unnecessary detriment while waiting for a contractual breach to occur.
By recognising anticipatory breach, the Court promotes fairness, efficiency, and certainty in contractual relations, encouraging parties to uphold their agreements or face prompt legal consequences.
This case continues to be a cornerstone of English contract law and is essential knowledge for law students, practitioners, and judges dealing with contractual disputes involving early renunciation of contractual obligations.
