The parties drew up heads of agreement. The heads of agreement provided for the assignment by Mr Bryant of certain patents and designs in return for a royalty. They also provided that Mr Bryant and the company would enter into a service agreement on terms set out in the heads of agreement. Mr Bryant argued that the agreement was not binding because it was ‘subject to contract’, although that phrase did not actually appear in the heads of agreement.
Held: The court applied the principle in Von Hatzfeldt-Wildenstein, and decided, as a matter of construction, that the document was an immediately binding agreement.
Roskill J
[1965] 1 WLR 1293, [1966] RPC 81
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Von Hatzfeldt-Wildensburg v Alexander ChD 26-Jul-1911
A purchaser wrote offering to purchase a house, saying acceptance was subject to her solicitor approving title, covenants, lease and form of contract.
Held: It was not a complete contract capable of enforcement: ‘It appears to be well settled . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract
Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.183736
