The applicants were retailers of the products of the defendant. The supply agreement allowed the defendant to alter the pricing structures. They complained.
Held: The agreements were lawful and did allow Esso to alter the prices in the way they had sought to do. The court discussed the construction of a non-derogation covenant: ‘even accepting that the principle of derogation from grant is, as Lord Denning suggested, one of general application, the nature and scope of the licensee’s obligation is a matter to be determined by reference to the contract as a whole having due regard to its commercial context. Accordingly, I do not think that the doctrine has any direct application to the present case, though it is no doubt a useful reminder that in the absence of clear words, parties to a contract are unlikely to have intended to make significant derogations through the operation of a subsidiary clause from the primary benefits intended to be conferred under it.’
Judges:
Moore-Bick J
Citations:
[2003] EWHC 1730 (Comm)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Suleyman Kirik v Oktay Ltd EAT 11-Mar-2004
The EAT had on an earlier occasion remitted the case to the tribunal for consideration of the damages award following a finding of unfair dismissal. The tribunal had then limited the award to two weeks pay. The employee appealed again.
Held: . .
Appealed to – Addison and others v Esso Petroleum Company Ltd CA 12-Nov-2004
Various licencees of the respondent challenged supply contracts under which Esso had the freedom to alter prices.
Held: The agreements were effective to allow Esso to alter prices unless they were acting either arbitrarily or dishonestly. The . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Addison and others v Esso Petroleum Company Ltd CA 12-Nov-2004
Various licencees of the respondent challenged supply contracts under which Esso had the freedom to alter prices.
Held: The agreements were effective to allow Esso to alter prices unless they were acting either arbitrarily or dishonestly. The . .
Cited – Stone and Another (T/A Tyre 20) v Fleet Mobile Tyres Ltd CA 31-Aug-2006
The defendants appealed an injunction which prevented them soliciting business from any customer of the claimant for one year, granted pursuant to a restrictive covenant contained in a franchise agreement.
Held: The injunction was discharged. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.184652
