The claimant complained of the failure to honour its sponsorship agreement of its Formula 1 racing team. The court at first instance had found the breaches to have been waived.
Held: Rix LJ discussed the consequences of a breach, saying: ‘this contract, especially during the winter break between two racing seasons, did not present the typical case where mere delay may demonstrate a decision to affirm . . The present case concerns a complex and medium term relationship, which a takeover has destabilised, and where it necessarily and legitimately takes time for the consequences to become clearer and for the innocent party to consider his position. That is the middle ground between acceptance of a repudiation and affirmation of a contract which I discussed in the earlier Stocznia case’
Rix LJ said: ‘this contract, especially during the winter break between two racing seasons, did not present the typical case where mere delay may demonstrate a decision to affirm . . The present case concerns a complex and medium term relationship, which a takeover has destabilised, and where it necessarily and legitimately takes time for the consequences to become clearer and for the innocent party to consider his position. That is the middle ground between acceptance of a repudiation and affirmation of a contract which I discussed in the earlier Stocznia case’
Judges:
Rix, Patten LJJ, Sir Mark Waller
Citations:
[2010] EWCA Civ 1051, (2010) 107(40) LSG 22, [2011] ETMR 10
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Force India Formula One Team Ltd v Etihad Airways PJSC and Another QBD 4-Nov-2009
The parties had entered into a sponsorship agreement, with the claimants undertaking to display the name of the defendants on their car. After the agreement, the claimant company had been taken over by parties with interests competing with those of . .
Cited by:
Cited – Jet2Com Ltd v SC Compania Nationala De Transporturi Aeriene Romane Tarom Sa ComC 15-Mar-2012
The parties had contracted for the defendant to maintain certain of the claimant’s aircraft. Each now asserted breach by the other.
Held: Neither the terms of the contract nor its character made time of the essence for the payments to be made . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract
Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.424933