In Jobson v. Johnson, a case decided in May 1988 but only reported some 17 months later in the Weekly Law Reports,1 the Court of Appeal struggled with the uncertain relationship between “penalty” clauses and “forfeiture” clauses in contracts. Even the House of Lords has said that the boundaries of the equitable doctrine of relief against forfeiture are unclear.2 The problem arises from the confusing uses of the word “forfeiture”, which can be used for several different types of situation. (To simplify the facts, the initials IP refer to the innocent party and CB to the contract-breaker.) “Forfeiture” is used to refer to some “self-help” situations, as where, without the need for any judicial order, IP is entitled upon CB’s breach of contract to retain as absolute and beneficial owner a sum of money (or item of property) which he previously held on CB’s account: by the forfeiture, IP is released from any further claim by CB to the money or property.3 “Forfeiture” is also used where the contract gives CB a certain right against IP but provides that, upon a breach by CB of one of his own obligations, that right shall terminate4 (again, IP’s remedy does not require a court order).