Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Contract - From: 1993 To: 1993

This page lists 49 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.

 
Lloyds Bank PLC v Waterhouse [1993] 2 FLR 97
1993
CA
Woolf LJ, Purchas LJ
Contract
The plaintiff bank claimed against the defendant under an "all monies" guarantee, to which the defendant raised defences of misrepresentation, non est factum, and negligence or breach of duty by the bank. Held: The court explored the inter-relationship between the doctrine and the law relating to misrepresentation. The defence of non est factum failed, principally because the defendant had failed to exercise proper care for his own protection. However by reason of misrepresentation or breach of duty the bank was not entitled to rely on the guarantee.
Woolf LJ discussed the plea 'non est factum: "Normally the plea is raised by a defendant who is contending that he had been misled (usually because of fraud) by some person other than the plaintiff as to the nature of the document which he has signed. This is not the case here. The defendant contends that he was misled as to the nature of the document by the activities of the bank. In these circumstances, while I do not suggest that the defendant is not entitled to seek to rely on a plea of non est factum, I do not regard the defendant's ability to rely on the plea as being the primary way in which to determine the merits of his defence to the bank's claim. It has clearly been laid down that as a matter of principle the scope of the plea of non est factum should be confined by the courts within narrow limits . . .' There are two reasons for confining the scope of the plea of non est factum. First, confusion and uncertainty would be caused if it was too easy for a person to deny responsibility for what is contained in a contract or deed which he has signed simply by asserting that he did not appreciate what he was signing. This reason is applicable also to other defences such as misrepresentation which can be raised as a defence to a contract in writing. Second, other innocent parties will rely upon the document. 'This is not applicable in a case such as this and so if the ordinary rules which are applicable to non est factum have still to be surmounted by a defendant in the position of the present appellant, this could place an unnecessarily heavy burden upon him . . However instead of having differing standards or requirements in order to establish a plea of non est factum, I suggest that it is preferable to protect, when appropriate, the position of a defendant who has been misled by the activities of the plaintiff as to the nature of the document which he has signed on the grounds of misrepresentation and breach of the duty not to mislead another party to a written contract as to the nature of that contract.'
1 Citers


 
British Aerospace v Dee Howard [1993] 1 Lloyds Rep 368
1993

Waller J
Jurisdiction, Contract
Where a contract contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause providing for a case to be tried in the UK, it was relevant that the circumstances which might now suggest a trial elsewhere were perfectly foreseeable at the time of the contract. The new circumstances had to point to some factor which could not have been foreseen on which they can rely for displacing the bargain which they made, ie that they would not object to the jurisdiction of the English court. In those circumstances, inconvenience for witnesses, location of documents, the timing of a trial, and all similar matters were aspects which they were precluded from raising.
The proper approach was to consider the proceedings as equivalent to proceedings commenced as of right, and therefore it was right to consider only the matters which would not have been foreseeable when the bargain was struck.
1 Citers


 
Norwich and Peterborough Building Society v Stead [1993] Ch 116
1993


Contract
It is for the person who has signed a document to show that the transaction which it effects is essentially different from the transaction intended so that the signatory can claim non est factum and say that he did not consent to it. But he also has to show, even if illiterate or lacking in understanding of the law, that he acted responsibly and carefully according to his circumstances, although the law is readier to relieve him against hardship.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Chiron Corporation v Organon Teknika (No 2) [1993] FSR 567
1993
CA

Intellectual Property, Contract, Jurisdiction
Section 44 could be used in a patent contract dispute even though the patent at issue was governed by the law of a foreign state which would not itself have applied that section.
Patents Act 1977 44
1 Citers


 
Samuels Finance Group Plc v Beechmanor Ltd and others (1993) P and CR 282
1993
CA
Lloyd LJ
Contract, Banking
The court considered the situation where the contract supported by a guarantee had been varied.
Lloyd LJ said: "One can perhaps imagine changes falling short of a novation which would yet be so fundamental that they could not properly be described as a variation at all. I will not attempt to say where the line is to be drawn." The variation in this case was comparatively minor and could well have been said to be within the "purview" of the original contract.
1 Citers


 
Dawson International plc v Coats Patons plc 1993 SLT 80
1993

Lord Prosser
Contract
When two parties talk about a matter which with commercial significance, a statement by one that he will do something will be construed as obligatory, or as an offer, rather than as a mere statement of intention, if the words and deeds of the other party indicate that the statement was so understood, and the obligation confirmed or the offer accepted so that parties appeared to regard the commercial 'deal' as concluded. But in considering whether there is indeed a contract between the parties, in any particular case, it will always be essential to look at the particular facts, with a view to discovering whether these facts, rather than some general rule of thumb, can be said to reveal consensus and an intention to conclude a contract.
1 Citers



 
 Abu Dhabi National Tanker Co v Product Star Shipping Ltd (No 2); CA 1993 - [1993] 1 Lloyd's Rep 397
 
G Percy Trentham Ltd v Archital Luxfer Ltd [1993] 1 Lloyd's Rep 25
1993
CA
Steyn LJ
Contract
The court discussed how it should approach the task of establishing whether a contract had been made.
Steyn LJ said: "Before I turn to the facts it is important to consider briefly the approach to be adopted to the issue of contract formation in this case. It seems to me that four matters are of importance. The first is the fact that English law generally adopts an objective theory of contract formation. That means that in practice our law generally ignores the subjective expectations and the unexpressed reservations of the parties. Instead the governing criterion is the reasonable expectations of honest men. And in the present case that means that the yardstick is the reasonable expectations of sensible businessmen. Secondly, it is true that the coincidence of offer and acceptance will in the vast majority of cases represent the mechanism of contract formation. It is so in the case of a contract alleged to have been made by an exchange of correspondence. But it is not necessarily so in the case of a contract alleged to have come into existence during and as a result of performance. See Brogden v. Metropolitan Railway (1877) 2 AC 666; New Zealand Shipping Co Ltd v A M Satterthwaite & Co. Ltd. [1974] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 534 at p.539 col.1 [1975] AC 154 at p. 167 D-E; Gibson v. Manchester City Council [1979] 1 WLR 294. The third matter is the impact of the fact that the transaction is executed rather than executory. It is a consideration of the first importance on a number of levels. See British Bank for Foreign Trade Ltd. v. Novinex [1949] 1 KB 628 at p. 630. The fact that the transaction was performed on both sides will often make it unrealistic to argue that there was no intention to enter into legal relations. It will often make it difficult to submit that the contract is void for vagueness or uncertainty. Specifically, the fact that the transaction is executed makes it easier to imply a term resolving any uncertainty, or, alternatively, it may make it possible to treat a matter not finalised in negotiations as inessential. In this case fully executed transactions are under consideration. Clearly, similar considerations may sometimes be relevant in partly executed transactions. Fourthly, if a contract only comes into existence during and as a result of performance of the transaction it will frequently be possible to hold that the contract impliedly and retrospectively covers pre-contractual performance. See Trollope & Colls Ltd. v. Atomic Power Constructions Ltd. [1963] 1 WLR 333."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Chasen Ryder and Co v Hedges [1993] 1 EGLR 47; [1993] 39 EG 123
1993
CA
Sir Donal Nicholls V-C, Staughton LJ
Agency, Contract
The vendor first instructed the plaintiffs to sell his residential home. They introduced several people, but no offers were made. The vendor went to another firm of agents. An extended planning consent was obtained, and one of the original enquirers returned and evetually bought the property. The vendor paid the second agent only. The first agent sued, and the defendant now appealed. Held: The test of whether an estate agent can sue for having introduced a purchaser is whether he has introduced the purchaser to the purchase transaction, not merely to the property. The burden lay first on the agent to show that his introduction had been the effective cause of the purchase. The court might infer that causation from the introduction, but the defendant might show another effective casue of the sale. Here the first introduction had not produced a result, but the second did. The first agent was not the effective cause of the sale and was not to be paid.
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 MS Fashions Ltd v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA; CA 1993 - [1993] Ch 425; [1993] 3 WLR 220; [1993] 3 All ER 769

 
 Bidaisee v Dorinsa Yusidai Sampath and Others; PC 1993 - 33 of 1993
 
Forsythe International (UK) Limited v Silver Shipping Co Limited and Others [1994] 1 WLR 1334; [1993] 2 Lloyds Rep 268; [1994] 1 All ER 851
1993

Clarke J
Contract
Delivery under section 24 requires a voluntary act by the person in possession because by section 61(1) of the 1979 Act, unless the context or subject matter otherwise requires, `delivery' means `voluntary transfer from one person to another'.
Sale of Goods Act 1979 24 61(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Kaines (UK) Ltd v Osterreichische Warrenhandelsgesellschaft Austrowaren Gesellschaft mbH [1993] 2 LL Rep 1
1993
CA

Damages, Contract
In June 1987 the defendants repudiated a contract to sell the claimant's crude oil for lifting in September 1987 and for payment in October 1987. The claimants thereupon contracted to buy the oil at a higher price, again for lifting in September 1987 and for payment in October 1987; and in August 1987 they issued their claim against the defendants. Held: The trial judge had erred in awarding interest from as far back as the date of the issue of the claim in that it was only in October 1987, when they had paid the higher price, that the claimants had sustained the loss. The injured party may, and if there is a market generally will, be required to make a substitute contract; and his damages will be assessed by reference to the time when the contract should have been made. This will usually be the time of acceptance of the breach. The judge's finding on the date when the buyers should have bought in a substitute cargo "fixes the level of the plaintiffs' damages on the facts of this case irrespective of what the plaintiffs did or failed to do at the time" and "crystallises the position so far as the basis of a capital award of damages is concerned".
1 Citers


 
Lee and others v GEC Plessey Telecommunications [1993] IRLR 383
1993

Connell J
Employment, Contract
The court was asked whether consideration had been given for a change in the employees' terms and conditions. Held. Where improvements in employee contracts are announced by an employer in the context of pay negotiations, the employees' continuing to work was consideration for the change.
Connell J said: "the plaintiffs assert that where an improvement in the employees' terms and conditions is announced by the employer, the employee gives consideration by continuing to work on the basis of the improved terms and without seeking a larger or more significant improvement. Otherwise, say the plaintiffs, the result would be ludicrous because any employer who announced a pay increase in the context of a pay claim which is then paid by the employer and accepted by the employee could thereafter withdraw the pay increase at will and without being liable to a damages claim for the difference on the basis that there was no consideration for the increased payment.
The consideration is, they say: (a) the employee continuing to work; and (b) not continuing with his pay claim, so that the employer avoids industrial action and benefits from the continued services of a known employee . .
The situation is similar with an increase in the severance payments made to those who lose their employment due to redundancy, for a redundancy payment is part of the remuneration package. The employee continues to work for the employer, thereby abandoning any argument that the increase should have been even greater and removing a potential area of dispute between employer and employee. The employer has both secured a benefit and avoided a detriment (see Williams v Roffey Bros and Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1 QB 1).
The case of Price v Rhondda Urban Council [1923] 2 Ch 372 is plainly distinguishable from the instant case, since in Price there was no negotiation between the employer and the employee as to whether married women should be employed or not, so that there was no extra value to the employer in women teachers continuing in their employment.
Further, in the instant case, if in each individual contract of employment there were incorporated the provisions of relevant collective agreements agreed from time to time, as well as general instructions and notices, the contention that each improvement in the employees' terms requires fresh consideration fails to give proper recognition to the value to be attributed by the employer to the continuation of the same workforce in his employ and/or to the possibility of making adjustments from time to time to the detail of the contracts of employment without having to issue new contracts whenever adjustments are put into effect."
1 Citers


 
Heronsgate Enterprises Ltd v Harman (Chesham) Ltd Unreported, 21 January 1993
21 Jan 1993
CA
Sir Donald Nicholls VC
Land, Contract
The court described the duties of a vendor as trustee of the property after exchange but before completion: "It is well-established law that, subject always to the terms of the particular contract, a seller of property under a specifically enforceable contract is to be regarded after the contract has been made as holding the property as a trustee for the buyer. However, he is not a bare trustee. His trust obligations are limited in certain respects. For example, if, as is usually the case, he is entitled to remain in possession for the period after the contract has been made pending the date fixed for completion, he is entitled to keep and retain for his own benefit the rents and profits of the land arising during that period . . The seller must take care not to damage the property or to prejudice the buyer's interest in the property of which, on completion, he will become the legal owner. But in general, within those limits he is entitled to the ordinary rents and profits, and for him to take steps to obtain them after contract and before the date fixed for completion, either by occupying and using the property himself or by permitting another to occupy and work the property in return for a rent, is not a breach of his duties as seller under a contract for sale." The release of a tipper from an indemnity agreement was not a matter of which a purchaser could complain, since the benefit of the agreement was not part of the property being sold: it was not annexed to the land, and was a benefit vested in the vendor under an agreement which, on completion, would not survive to bind or to benefit the purchaser as the new owner. If the purchaser could not compel the vendor to assign that benefit, then the purchaser could not complain if the vendor chose not to do so.
1 Citers


 
Wahda Bank v Arab Bank Plc Gazette, 27 January 1993
27 Jan 1993
QBD

Contract
A bond which was unlawful under UN Sanctions order was not enforceable.

 
Philips (Hong Kong) Ltd v The Attorney General of Hong Kong (1993) 61 BLR 49; [1993] UKPC 3; (1993) 9 Const LJ 202
9 Feb 1993
PC
Lord Woolf
Contract, Banking
After referring to two Australian cases on penalty clauses in contracts: "These statements assist by making it clear that the court should not adopt an approach to provisions as to liquidated damages which could, as indicated earlier, defeat their purpose. Except possibly in the case of situations where one of the parties to the contract is able to dominate the other as to the choice of the terms of a contract, it will normally be insufficient to establish that a provision is objectionably penal to identify situations where the application of the provision could result in a larger sum being recovered by the injured party than his actual loss. Even in such situations so long as the sum payable in the event of non-compliance with the contract is not extravagant, having regard to the range of losses that it could reasonably be anticipated it would have to cover at the time the contract was made, it can still be a genuine pre-estimate of the loss that would be suffered and so a perfectly valid liquidated damage provision." but "A difficulty can arise where the range of possible loss is broad. Where it should be obvious that, in relation to part of the range, the liquidated damages are totally out of proportion to certain of the losses which may be incurred, the failure to make special provision for those losses may result in the ´liquidated damages' not being recoverable."
The Board considered the nature of penalty clauses. The "court should not be astute to descry a 'penalty clause'" and emphasised that it would "normally be insufficient . . to identify situations where the application of the provision could result in a larger sum being recovered by the injured party than his actual loss". However "A difficulty can arise where the range of possible loss is broad. Where it should be obvious that, in relation to part of the range, the liquidated damages are totally out of proportion to certain of the losses which may be incurred, the failure to make special provision for those losses may result in the "liquidated damages" not being recoverable. (See the decision of the Court of Appeal on very special facts in Ariston SRL v Charly Records Ltd (1990) The Independent 13 April 1990.) However, the court has to be careful not to set too stringent a standard and bear in mind that what the parties have agreed should normally be upheld. Any other approach will lead to undesirable uncertainty especially in commercial contracts."
Lord Woolf said: "the court has to be careful not to set too stringent a standard and bear in mind that what the parties have agreed should normally be upheld", not least because "[a]ny other approach will lead to undesirable uncertainty especially in commercial contracts".
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
CTN Cash and Carry v Gallaher [1993] EWCA Civ 19; [1994] 4 All ER 714
15 Feb 1993
CA
Steyn LJ
Contract
The buyer paid a sum demanded by the seller who threatened otherwise to withdraw the credit facilities it provided to the buyer. The sum was not in fact due, but the demand had been made honestly. The buyer said the agreement was voidable for duress. Held: Duress was not available when the action threatened was lawful. The common law does not recognise the doctrine of inequality of bargaining power in commercial dealings. It was necessary to focus on the distinctive features of the individual case and then to ask whether it amounted to a case of duress. Three characteristics here assisted the court in its decision. First, the dispute did not concern a protected relationship and did not arise in the context of dealings between a supplier and a customer. It arose in the context of arms length commercial dealings between two trading companies. Secondly, the defendants were in law entitled to refuse to enter into any future contracts with the plaintiffs for any reason whatsoever, or for no reason at all. Because a decision not to deal with the plaintiffs in the future would have been lawful, it was also lawful for them to threaten the plaintiffs that they would no longer grant them credit, when demanding payment of an invoice which was alleged to be due. The third, and critically important characteristic was that the defendant bona fide thought that the sum was owed and that therefore, when exerting commercial pressure in order to obtain payment, were not motivated by malice or anything which could be described as "bad faith".
Steyn LJ approved the dicta of Professor Birk: "It is tolerably clear that, at least where they [the judges] can be confident of a general consensus in favour of their evaluation, the courts are willing to apply a standard of impropriety rather than technical unlawfulness".
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Workers Trust and Merchant Bank Ltd v Dojap Investments Ltd Gazette, 07 April 1993; [1993] 2 WLR 702; [1993] 2 All ER 370; [1993] AC 573; [1993] UKPC 7
22 Feb 1993
PC
Lords Keith, Jauncey, Donaldson, Browne-Wilkinson, Sir Christopher Slade
Land, Contract
(Jamaica) The purchaser at an auction had been obliged under the terms of the auction contract to pay a deposit of 25%. He failed to complete, and the vendor took the deposit by way of forfeit. The standard deposit payable would be 10%. The Court of Appeal of Jamaica ordered the return of the excess above 15%. Held: A penalty was "a contractual provision which requires one party in the event of his breach of the contract to pay or forfeit a sum of money to the other party is unlawful as being a penalty, unless such provision can be justified as being a payment of liquidated damages being a genuine pre-estimate of the loss which the innocent party will incur by reason of the breach. One exception to this general rule is the provision for the payment of a deposit (customarily 10% of the contract price) on the sale of land. " A deposit in excess of 10% of the purchase price (25%) was not properly described as 'earnest money' and may be treated rather as a penalty. As such, the whole deposit taken was repayable to the defaulting purchaser.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
AMCHEM Products Incorporated v British Columbia (Workers' Compensation Board) [1993] 1 SCR 897; (1993) 102 DLR (4th) 96; [1993] 3 WWR 441; 77 BCLR (2d) 62; 150 NR 321; 23 BCAC 1; [1993] CarswellBC 47; JE 93-674
24 Mar 1993

La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and McLachlin JJ
Commonwealth, Jurisdiction, Contract, International
Supreme Court of Canada - Courts - Appropriate forum - Action commenced in U.S. courts - Plaintiffs largely resident in Canada - Most of corporate defendants with some connection with state where action brought - Anti-suit injunction sought in Canadian courts to prevent action in U.S. courts - Principles governing the determination of appropriate forum and governing comity between courts - Whether or not an injunction appropriate.
Prerogative writs - Injunctions - Appropriate forum for bringing action - Action commenced in U.S. courts - Plaintiffs largely resident in Canada - Most of corporate defendants with some connection with state where action brought - Anti-suit injunction sought in Canadian courts to prevent action in U.S. courts - Whether or not an injunction appropriate.
Conflict of laws - Courts - Action commenced in U.S. courts - Plaintiffs largely resident in Canada - Most of corporate defendants with some connection with state where action brought - Anti-suit injunction sought in Canadian courts to prevent action in U.S. courts - Principles governing the determination of appropriate forum and governing comity between courts - Whether or not an injunction appropriate.
Sopinka J discussed the importance of comity considerations in anti-suit injunction applications and held: "the domestic court as a matter of comity must take cognisance of the fact that the foreign court has assumed jurisdiction. If, applying the principles relating to forum non conveniens . . the foreign court could reasonably have concluded that there was no alternative forum that was clearly More appropriate, the domestic court should respect that decision and the application [for an anti-suit injunction] should be dismissed."
1 Citers

[ Canlii ]
 
Pan Ocean Shipping Co Ltd v Creditcorp Ltd Gazette, 24 March 1993
24 Mar 1993
CA

Contract, Transport
(The Trident Beauty) Advance payments made under a charterparty contract were not recoverable the assignees when the charter became ineffective. Such contracts were provisional as between the original parties, but did not retain that characteristic on assignment unless the contract was, in effect, clearly identified as such.
1 Citers


 
First Energy (UK) Ltd v Hungarian International Bank Ltd Independent, 16 April 1993; [1993] 2 Lloyds Rep 194
16 Apr 1993
CA
Steyn LJ
Agency, Contract
A manager, though he lacked actual authority to authorise and offer a particular loan facility to the plaintiff, still did so by sending him a letter of offer which was accepted. Held: Albeit the manager lacked actual authority to make the loan and that no other person in the bank had held him out as having such authority, by reason of his very position he was a person who would ordinarily have authority to communicate the decision of more senior members of the bank who were authorised to make and/or approve such a loan and the plaintiff was accordingly entitled to rely upon the offer he had received. Steyn LJ said that a "theme that runs through our law of contract is that the reasonable expectations of honest men must be protected. It is not a rule or a principle of law. It is the objective which has been and still is the principal moulding force of our law of contract. It affords no licence to a Judge to depart from binding precedent. On the other hand, if the prima facie solution to a problem runs counter to the reasonable expectations of honest men, this criterion sometimes requires a rigorous re-examination of the problem to ascertain whether the law does indeed compel demonstrable unfairness".
1 Citers



 
 First Sport Ltd v Barclays Bank Plc; CA 23-Apr-1993 - Independent, 23 April 1993

 
 Vitol Sa v Norelf Ltd (the 'Santa Clara'); QBD 30-Apr-1993 - Times, 20 May 1993; Gazette, 25 August 1993; [1994] 4 All ER 109; [1994] 1 WLR 1390

 
 William Sindall Plc v Cambridgeshire County Council; CA 21-May-1993 - Ind Summary, 28 June 1993; Times, 08 June 1993; [1993] NPC 82 CA; [1994] 1 WLR 1016; [1994] 3 All ER 932; [1993] EWCA Civ 14

 
 London and Blenheim Estates v Ladbroke Retail Parks Ltd; CA 1-Jun-1993 - Times, 01 June 1993; [1993] 4 All ER 157; [1994] 1 WLR 31
 
McMillan Graham Printers Ltd and Others v RR (Uk) Ltd and Others Gazette, 02 June 1993
2 Jun 1993
CA

Contract
The imposition of joint and several fines is wrong in principal, since it cannot take proper account of the ability of both defendants to pay.

 
Regina v Powell Times, 03 June 1993
3 Jun 1993
CA

Contract
s12 provides an indication of what behaviour amounts to contempt of court.
Contempt of Court Act 1981 12


 
 Torvald Klaveness A/S v Arni Maritime Corporation (The Gregos); CA 4-Jun-1993 - Ind Summary, 05 July 1993; Times, 04 June 1993; [1993] 2 Lloyd's Rep 335

 
 JF Finnegan Ltd v Community Housing Association Ltd; OR 11-Jun-1993 - Independent, 11 June 1993
 
Southampton County Council v Academy Cleaning Services London Ltd Times, 11 June 1993
11 Jun 1993
QBD

Contract
In the absence of consideration a tender term is not binding on company.


 
 Tinsley v Milligan; HL 28-Jun-1993 - Independent, 06 July 1993; Times, 28 June 1993; [1994] 1 AC 340; [1993] UKHL 3; [1993] 3 WLR 126; [1993] 3 All ER 65
 
Islwyn Borough Council and Another v Newport Borough Council Times, 28 June 1993; 158 LG Rev 501; [1993] EWCA Civ 28
28 Jun 1993
CA
Glidewell, Hirst, Roch LJJ
Local Government, Contract
Three local authorities disputed whether a contract had been made between them, and if so its terms, as to the financial support of a leisure centre. Held: Later legislation need not frustrate agreement between the parties.
Hirts LJ said: "the agreement was in my judgment frustrated by supervening illegality . . the parties having covenanted to do something lawful, and section 42(a) having come in and hindered them from doing it, the covenant was repealed, leaving the Joint Committee powerless to fulfil their central function of management of the Leisure Centre."
Local Government Act 1972 101(1) - Education Act (No 2) 1986 42
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Pitt v PHH Asset Management; CA 29-Jun-1993 - Times, 30 July 1993; Independent, 06 August 1993; [1993] 4 All ER 961; [1993] EWCA Civ 1; (1994) 68 P and CR 69; [1993] EGCS 127; [1993] 40 EG 149; [1994] 1 WLR 327
 
Royscott Trust v Burno Daken Ltd and David Ball unreported, July 9th 1993
9 Jul 1993
QBD
Astill J
Consumer, Contract
R let a vehicle on hire purchase terms to one E(SS), who passed it to BD in breach of his obligations under the hire purchase agreement. E(SS) drew up an 'invoice' stating the value of the car to be a certain sum, X. At the time, E(SS) owed BD substantially more than X for goods supplied. E(SS) had been unable to discharge that debt, and BD therefore took the vehicle in part satisfaction of the debt. Held: The Judge considered whether the transaction amounted to a 'disposition' within section 29. He said this: "it appears to me that the consideration for this transaction was not money, albeit a document called an 'Invoice' was produced and the value of the vehicle agreed. Rather the consideration was a forbearance to sue for that part of the outstanding debt represented by the vehicle's value. It was not 'an exchange for property for money' and not, therefore, a disposition as defined by section 29 sub-section 1 of the Hire-Purchase Act 1964".
Hire-Purchase Act 1964 29(1)
1 Citers



 
 Lonrho Plc and Others v Fayed and Others (No 5); CA 27-Jul-1993 - Times, 27 July 1993; [1993] 1 WLR 1489 (abbreviated); [1994] 1 All ER 188

 
 Arbuthnott v Fagan; CA 30-Jul-1993 - [1995] CLC 1396; [1996] 1 Lloyd's Re Insurance Law Reports 135
 
Iswlyn Borough Council v Newport Borough Council Independent, 19 August 1993
19 Aug 1993
CA

Contract
Contract for management of sports centre not frustrated by Act.
Education Act 1986 42(b)

 
Gulf Bank Ksc v Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd Gazette, 17 November 1993; Ind Summary, 30 August 1993; Times, 24 August 1993
24 Aug 1993
QBD

Litigation Practice, International, Contract
A foreign contract was within the purview of Order 11 of the Rules of the Supreme Court. The presence of an indemnity clause which was expressly subject to UK law made the rest of the contract also subject to UK law. The indemnity clause was still part of the contract despite government decree.


 
 Millar and Others v Bassey and Another; CA 26-Aug-1993 - Independent, 26 August 1993; [1994] EMLR 44
 
Whittles (Inspector of Taxes) v Uniholdings Ltd Ind Summary, 30 August 1993
30 Aug 1993
ChD

Contract
Case remitted to commissioner to clarify his findings.

 
Arbuthnot and Others v Feltrim and Others; Deeny and Others v Gooda Walker Ltd and Others Independent, 01 October 1993; Times, 20 October 1993
12 Oct 1993
QBD
Saville J
Contract, Insurance, Professional Negligence
Lloyds' names sought damages from their underwriting agents for negligence. The court had to decide as a preliminary issue whether any duty of care arose to the names. Held: Until 1990, names signed an agreement with a member's agent who in turn arranged for them to be served by an underwriting agency, who, and again in turn, wrote insurance business on their behalf. Some members combined these two functions and were known as 'direct' names, and others were known as 'indirect' names. The underwriting agents had absolute discretion as to what business was to be written, and could appoint sub-agents. This very wide discretion and the unlimited liability of names and payments made to underwriters, required the underwriters to exercise a duty to exercise reasonable care and skill. That could only be excluded by the clearest of contracts. Contractual obligations might replace common law duties of care, but in this case these obligations for direct names were identical. For indirect names, the obligation existed in negligence only. This case did not require any extension of the law of negligence. Any delegation to managing agents did not alter the implicit promise to members.
1 Citers


 
Guildford Borough Council v Valler, Smith and Others Ind Summary, 01 November 1993; Times, 15 October 1993; [1994] JPL 734
15 Oct 1993
CA
Staughton LJ
Contempt of Court, Contract
The use of the power of the High Court to commit a contemnor was discretionary but may be exercised for a negligent failure.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Moran v University College Salford (Practice Guidance - Leave to Appeal) Independent, 26 November 1993; Times, 27 October 1993; Ind Summary, 29 November 1993
27 Oct 1993
CA

Contract, Litigation Practice, Education
An offer of a student place was capable of acceptance, but a mandatory injunction was refused. The court gave guidance on how to decide if leave was necessary to make an appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Rules of the Supreme Court 59 - Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 7(1)

 
Whyfe v Michael Cullen and Partners and Others Ind Summary, 13 December 1993; Times, 15 November 1993
15 Nov 1993
CA

Torts - Other, Contract
The inclusion of a trick clause in a draft lease might be an intent to deceive. It was a triable issue as to whether the leases in issue had been obtained by a fraudulent misrepresentation as to their terms.


 
 Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd and Others; St. Martins Property Corporation Ltd v Sir Robert McAlpine; HL 8-Dec-1993 - Times, 23 July 1993; Gazette, 08 December 1993; Independent, 30 July 1993; [1994] 1 AC 85; [1993] UKHL 4; [1993] 3 All ER 417

 
 Galoo Ltd and Others v Bright Grahame Murray; CA 21-Dec-1993 - Times, 14 January 1994; [1994] 1 WLR 1360; [1995] 1 All ER 16; [1993] EWCA Civ 3

 
 In Re Selectmove Ltd; CA 21-Dec-1993 - Times, 13 January 1994; Ind Summary, 17 January 1994; [1995] 1 WLR 474; [1993] EWCA Civ 8; [1995] STC 406; [1995] 2 All ER 531

 
 Avintair v Ryder Airline Services Ltd; SCS 30-Dec-1993 - [1993] ScotCS CSIH - 10; 1994 SCLR 401; 1994 SLT 613; 1994 SC 270
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.