In Barton v Gwyn‐Jones the Court of Appeal considered the remedies available to a service provider who performed services pursuant to a contract that expressly stated that they were entitled to payment of a specified sum if the services led to a particular result, but did not expressly state whether the service provider was entitled to payment if the services failed to lead to that result. This note argues that the best explanation of the remedy awarded by the Court of Appeal is restitution for a ‘failure of condition’. It is further argued, although more tentatively, that the restitutionary award was probably not inconsistent with the parties’ contractual allocation of risk.

中文翻译：

---

条件失败或隐含条款？

在Barton诉Gwyn-Jones案中，上诉法院考虑了根据合同明确提供服务的服务提供者可采用的补救措施，该合同明确指出，如果服务导致特定结果，则他们有权获得指定金额的付款，但没有明确说明如果服务未能导致结果，服务提供者是否有权获得付款。该说明认为，对上诉法院所判补救措施的最好解释是归还“条件不合格”。进一步论证（尽管更暂定），赔偿金可能与当事方对风险的合同分配并不矛盾。