The claimants alleged that the defendants had wrongfully induced a breach of contract. There had been a proposal to float a company on the AIM. It was put to the defendant under protection of an agreement so that they might consider working as brokers in the proposed flotation. The agreement contained a particular clause which was not eventually seen by the branch which undertook the work.
Held: There had been a genuine misunderstanding of the terms under which the flotation was to proceed. The claimant had known of its right to require the defendants not to act without express authorisation, but had acquiesced. Acquiescence is an aspect of estoppel by representation.
Judges:
David Richards J
Citations:
[2005] EWHC 2449 (Ch)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v The Shire of Hastings PC 1977
(Victoria) The Board set out the necessary conditions for a clause to be implied into a contract.
Held: Lord Simon of Glaisdale said: ‘Their Lordships do not think it necessary to review exhaustively the authorities on the implication of a . .
Cited – Philips Electronic Grant Public Sa and Another v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd CA 31-Oct-1994
The implication of an additional term into a contract is dependant on it being the sole solution. As to the implication of terms generally: ‘The question whether a term should be implied, and if so what, almost inevitably arises after a crisis has . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract, Torts – Other
Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.234732
