= THE UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST INDIES EXAMINATIONS O. JULY 19.99 CODE AND NAME OF COURSE: LA2BB EQUITABLE. REMEDIES DATE AND TIME: DURATION: 9. Keowee INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATES: This paper has 3 pages and 6 questions Answer THREE questions. Answers may be confined to the law of any jurisdiction in the Commonwealth Caribbean unless the context indicates otherwise. Domuch managed the Noisemongers Band from 1990 under a ten-year contract of employment. As a result of his management the Noisemongers bec:ime a "musical force’ In December 1998 Domuch, on behalf of the Noisemongers. concluded an agreement with Macro Resorts Lid. for appearance every Wednesday night for a period of one year ending December 1999. They also agreed not to perform anywhere else on Wednesday nights or the duration of the period. The Noisemongers have dismissed Domuch and hhave indicated to Macro Resorts Ltd. that they have no intention to “honour the agreement any further” as they wished to be more flexible to perform wherever they chose on Wednesday nights. Domuch wants his job back, Macro Resorts Ltd. is anxious to prevent Noisemongers, rom breaking the contract, Domuch and Macro Resorts Ltd. are threatening to take legal action against Noisemongers. Advise the Noisemongers. 2. Carefully examine and show the basis and scope of the equitable jurisdiction to award damages, and the extent, ifat all, to which it differs from the common law jurisdiction. PLEASE TU N OVER The University of the West Indies3. Answer both (a) and (b): (a) (b) In a contract for a ten-year lease of 8 shops at 150-164 Swan Avenue, St. James, Adam, the landlord, acknowledged receipt of $48,000. This sum represented three years’ advance rent from Eve, to be used in renovating the shops, which, according to the written agreement, were to be let to Eve on completion of the renovation. Upon completion Adam, the landlord, demised 7 of the shops to lessees who have since been in possession. Advise Eve. In January, 1993, Dan agreed in writing to give Tom a three-year lease at a rent of $12,000 a year. A covenant by Tom to keep the premises in repair was expressly provided in the agreement to be embodied in the lease to be executed. Tom assigned the premises and the agreement to Sam, who has since been in possession. Sam has refused to repair the premises in breach of the promise to repair given under the written agreement between Tom and Dan. Tom has absconded. Advise Dan. Corlita entered into an oral contract with Wendy to purchase a cottage in’ St. James, Barbados, part of the contract being that certain alterations should be made by Wendy. During the progress of the alterations, Corlita frequently visited the flat and made suggestions as to the manner in which the work should be done Her suggestions were carried out by Wendy. On completion of the work, Corlita repudiated the contract, Wendy now claims specific performance of the contract against Corlita. Advise Wendy. Nicole agreed orally to being divorced by Neil. They agreed, inter alia, that a ‘bungalow held by Neil on trust for both of them in equal shares would be transferred to Nicole as sole beneficial owner; that Nicole would take over full responsibility for the mortgage on the bungalow; and that she would not apply for maintenance. Nicole carried out her part of the bargain, but after the divorce Neil did not convey the bungalow to her. Advise Nicole as to her chances of obtaining Specific Performance. PLEASE TURN OVERPage 5 “It is important to note that the Mareva Injunction, even if it related to a specified asset, operates in personam. It is not a form of pre-trial attachment. It does not effect seizure of the asset... It merely prevents the defendant personally from removing or transferring the asset. It gives no proprietary right in the asset, nor priority over other creditors” Discuss. The court “has always protested against the notion that it ought to allow a wrong to continue simply because the wrongdoer is able and willing to pay for the injury he may inflict. Neither has the circumstance that the wrongdoer is in some sense a public, benefactor . ever been considered a sufficient reason for refusing to protect by injunction an individual whose rights are being persistently infringed.” ‘Comment on this statement and examine the other discretionary factors which guide the courts in determining applications for an injunction. END OF PAPER