Did Mr. Doulton do what he was supposed to do on time? (Timeliness of Performance)

Did Mr. Doulton do what he was supposed to do on time? (Timeliness of Performance)

In the case of Chisholm v. Doulton [1890] 22 QBD 736, the focus of the legal proceedings did not center on the timeliness of Mr. Doulton’s performance or whether he fulfilled his obligations within the agreed-upon time frames. The case primarily concerned the principle of employer liability for the actions of an employee conducted without the employer’s knowledge or authorization.

Specific information regarding whether Mr. Doulton met his obligations punctually or adhered to agreed-upon timelines isn’t explicitly documented within the case details. The legal dispute and court proceedings predominantly centered around the employer’s accountability for the actions of the employee performed without the employer’s awareness or consent.

Therefore, based on the available information regarding Chisholm v. Doulton [1890] 22 QBD 736, there isn’t specific documentation or legal analysis concerning Mr. Doulton’s timeliness in fulfilling obligations. The case primarily revolved around employer liability rather than the timeliness of performance by Mr. Doulton within the agreed-upon timeframes.