The court was asked: ‘(1) What approach should the Court adopt on seeking to ascertain, by a process of implication, what terms of a letter of credit are contractual under an FOB sale which provides for payment to be made by an irrevocable and confirmed letter of credit but does not otherwise specify the terms which that letter of credit should contain?
(2) Whether the principle that a party, giving a wrong or inadequate reason for refusal to perform a contract, may justify his refusal by relying on some other reason not relied on at the time, is qualified by a further principle
(a) that such other reason is one which, if relied on at the time of refusal to perform, could not have been put right; and/or
(b) that a party who gives one ground for his refusal to perform may by his conduct be precluded from setting up a different ground if it would be unjust or unfair to allow him to do so’.
Judges:
Nourse, Evans LJJ, Sir Ralph Gibson
Citations:
[1997] EWCA Civ 1958, [1997] 4 ALL ER 514, [1997] CLC 1274, [1997] 2 Lloyds Rep 386
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Arbitration, Commercial
Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.142354