Step 1: Identify the principal or issue of law

The principal or issue of law is remedies for breach of contract.

Step 2: Explain the rule(s) of law relevant to the principle/area/issue of law

identified in step one with reference to authority
A contract is discharged by complete performance, but when there is a failure to
perform, a breach of contract occur. In this circumstances, the innocent party is
entitled to claim a remedy.
The innocent party can choose what remedy they seek for from the court. They
can ask for a combination of remedies or an alternate remedy should the court
not entertain their preferred choice.
There are two types of remedies which are common law remedies and equitable
remedies. Common law remedies categories into termination and claim for
damages. Equitable remedies categories into specific performances and
injunction.
In common law, termination allows the innocent party to reject the attempted
performance and put an end to any further specific performance of outstanding
obligation. Termination of performance is only available as a remedy for
relatively serious breaches of contract. An innocent party who seek a remedy
must be able to prove a breach of a condition.
In the case of Associated Newspapers Ltd v Bancks (1951) 83 CLR 322, Bancks
a cartoonist agreed to produce a weekly full-page drawing for Associated
Newspaper with a pay of salary and published on the front page of the
newspaper comic section. However, he realise that his drawings appeared on the
third page of the comic section. Bancks had expressed his dissatisfied but
Associated Newspaper ignored him. Bancks decided to terminate the further
performance of the contract. In this case, court justified Bancks to terminate the
contract because the promise to publish Bancks drawings on front page of
comics section is an essential term to let his entered the contract.
Claim for damages is an award of money to compensate for a loss. Damages are
not a punishment, there are compensatory. The aim of damage is to put the
innocent party in the financial position they would have been in had the contract
been properly performed.
In the case of Radford v de Froberville [1978] 1 All ER 33, Radford owned two
adjacent blocks of land and he sold one to de Froberville on condition to build
an expensive brick wall on the boundary. However, she failed to build and
resold to third party. Radford sued de Froberville for damages for breach of
contract. The issue of contract is what was the appreciate measure of damages.
The court stated that Radford was entitle to claim for damages equal to the cost
of actually constructing the wall.
Only those losses flowing from the breach of contract can be compensated.
Losses that are too remote, unforeseeable will not be claimable as damages.
Damages can be claimed to compensate for two type of loss which are direct
loss and consequential loss.
Direct loss occurring in the usual or normal course of things from the breach.
This can seen in the case of Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman
Industries Ltd [1949] 2 KB 528. Newman sold a boiler to Victoria but the boiler
was delivery five months late. As a result of not having enough laundry
capacity, Victoria Laundry lost of ordinary profit and missed out their lucrative
contract with government. Victoria Laundry sued Newman and sought to claim
both losses. The issue was whether Victoria could claim for the losses. The
decision was they only could claim the loss of ordinary profit. The loss of the
cleaning contract with the government was too remote to be claimed, especially
considering that no notice brought to attention of Newman.
Consequential loss is occur as a result of special or exceptional circumstances
where the risk of such loss was made known to the other party at the time the
contract was entered into. In the case of Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 2 CLR 517;
9 Exch 341. The crankshaft of Hadley mill broke, bringing operations to a
complete halt. Regarding the request of the manufacturer to have the broken
shaft for replacement, Hadley consigned broken shaft to Baxendale a carrier to
deliver to the manufacturer on next day. However, he delayed for several days.
Hadley claimed damages for breach of contract from Baxendale to compensate
for the loss of profits caused by the delayed. The issue of the court is whether
Hadley entitled to compensation for the loss profit. The court decided that
Hadley was not entitled because normally it would be expected that a mill have
a spare shaft and it was not reasonably foreseeable that a broken shaft would
cause a complete halt of production.
Besides, damage usually not awarded to compensate a party who suffered
disappointed and distress as a result of a breach of contract, except when the
contract was for the provision of enjoyment, relaxation or pleasure.
In the case of Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon [1993] HCA 4; (1993) 176 CLR 344,
Dillon booked and paid for cruise on a passenger ship. Few day later, the ship
struck a rock and sank. Apart from physical injuries and emotional trauma,
Dillon suffered from disappointed and distress. She sued Baltic Shipping for
damages to compensate this. The issue of the court was whether Dillon entitled
to damages for disappointed and distress from a breach of contract. The decision
was the damages should be awarded because the defaulting party agreed to
provide a pleasure and relax vacation.
The plaintiff will not be able to recover any loss that could have been avoided
by the exercise of reasonable care. If the plaintiff takes reasonable steps to avoid
loss but suffer further loss, the defendant will be liable for that further loss.
Where the plaintiff successfully avoids loss by taking mitigating action, the
defendant is only liable for the reduced loss.
In the case of Burns v Man Automotive (Aust) Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 653,
MAN Automotive supplied a large commercial vehicle to Burns but the vehicle
supplied was defective. However, Burns persisted in trying to use it and
accumulated substantial operating losses in the process. Burns sued for damage
to compensate for lost profits. The issue is to what extent must a plaintiff take
steps to mitigate losses. The decision was a plaintiff is not required to take steps
to mitigate loss if the plaintiff does not have the necessary meant to do so.
Specific performance is a court order to perform as promised under contract
when a compensation is an inadequate damage. Specific performances is not
available for personal service contract and continual supervision of court
necessary. In the case of Lumley v Wagner (1852) 42 ER 687, Wagner
contracted to sing in Lumleys theatre for fixed period. She also promised that
during this period, she would not to perform anywhere else. Lumley wished to
enforce both of those promised. The issue of the court was whether the court
would enforce specific performance of Wagner promise to sing in Lumleys
theatre. The court decided that actual performance of this promise would not be
ordered.
Injunctions are court order requiring a person to do or not do something. Before
injunction is granted, plaintiff must show legal right of a proprietary nature,
infringement is likely to continue or be repeated, damages are an inadequate
remedy and contract is final expression of parties rights. This can show in case
of Buckenara v Hawthorn Football Club Ltd [1988] VR 39. Buckenara was a
football player contracted to play for the Hawthorn Football Club. As part of
agreement, Buckenara promised not to play for any competing club while
contracted to Hawthorn. When it seemed that Buckenara intended to play for
competing club, Hawthorn sought an injunction to prevent the threatened breach
of contract. The issue of the court is would the court issue an injunction to
prevent breach of contract. The court ordered Buckenara not to play for any
other club which was in competition with Hawthorn because there is a
threatened breach of contract.
Step 3: Apply the law to the facts of the question in a detailed and logical
manner
When a breach of contract occurs, Queenie is entitled to claim a remedy from
Toni. By looking at the facts of scenario, Toni is defendant and Queenie is
plaintiff. Tony had breach the contract as he refused to complete the portrait of
Queenie. At common law, Queenie is entitled to terminate the contract by
rejecting the attempted performances and put an end to any further specific
performance of outstanding obligations by Toni.
Moreover, Queenie entitled to claim for damages because the aim of damages is
to put the innocent party in this case Queenie in the financial position she would
have been in had the contract been properly performed and therefore, Queenie
would be able to claim damages equal to the cost of complete painting. Queenie
also entitled to claim back the upfront payment of $3000 as Toni partial
performance the portrait of Queenie as direct loss which occurred in the usual or
normal course of things from the breach. However, Queenie may not able to
claim for damages od disappoint and distress due to incomplete portrait on the
contract is for painting portrait not for the provision of enjoyment, relaxation
and pleasure.
In this circumstances, specific performance is not available for Queenie as
painting a portrait is a personal service. As stated in the case, Queenie had
included a term stating that Toni is not to work for other within duration of
contract. Therefore, Queenie entitle sought an injunction to prevent the
threatened breach of contract.
Step 4: Draw possible conclusion

In conclusion, Queenie can claim for common law remedies and equitable
remedies in this case.