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: 1994 To: 1994

This page lists 40 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.

 
The Sormovskiy 3068 [1994] 2 Lloyds Rep 266
1994
QBD
Clarke J
Contract, Transport, Commercial
It makes commercial sense to have a simple rule that in the absence of an express term of the contract the master must only deliver the cargo to the holder of the bill of lading who presents it to him. In that way both the shipowners and the persons in truth entitled to possession of the cargo are protected by the terms of the contract.
1 Citers


 
Else (1982) Ltd v Parkland Holdings Ltd [1994] 1 BCLC 130
1994
CA
Hoffmann LJ
Contract
Hoffmann LJ spoke of the giving of relief in the context of a penalty: "mechanical in effect and involves no exercise of discretion at all."
1 Citers


 
Erith Contractors Limited v Costain Civil Engineering Limited [1994] ADRLJ 123
1994

His Honour John Lloyd Q.C
Contract, Construction
The meaning and effect of clause 18(2) was considered. Held: It was axiomatic that if the contractor requires the sub-contract dispute to be dealt with jointly with the main contract dispute with the employer in accordance with the provisions of clause 66 of the main contract, he is under an obligation to take the necessary steps to have the two disputes dealt with in accordance with clause 66.
1 Citers


 
Britoil plc v Hunt Overseas Oil Inc [1994] CLC 561
1994
CA
Glidewell LJ and Hobhouse LJ, Hoffmann LJ
Equity, Contract
The agreement between the parties was alleged not to be in accordance with what had previously been agreed in summary heads of agreement. Held: (Hoffmann LJ dissenting) The appeal failed, and rectification was refused. The defendants had failed to establish that there was a prior common agreement or intention in terms that the court could ascertain or that the definitive agreement failed to reflect that prior agreement. Hobhouse LJ noted that Saville J “did not base himself upon any consideration of the evidence as to the actual state of mind of the parties”
1 Citers


 
E E Caledonia Ltd v Orbit Valve Plc [1994] 1 WLR 221
1994
QBD
Buckley J
Contract
A clause which gave an indemnity against any claim arising from the manner of performance of the contract by one party was not to be construed to exempt negligence: "The principle is that in the absence of clear words the parties to a contract are not to be taken to have intended that an exemption or indemnity clause should apply to the consequences of a party's negligence."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Orion Finance Ltd v Crown Financial Management Ltd [1994] 2 BCLC 607
1994

Vinelott J
Contract

1 Citers


 
Bovis Construction (Scotland) Ltd v Whatlings Construction Ltd 1994 SC 351
1994
OHCS
Lord President Hope
Scotland, Contract
Correspondence preceding a contract could be looked at to determine the circumstances in which a provision in the contract was intended to apply.
Lord President Hope said: "In my opinion the issue which has arisen between the parties in this case requires that reference should be made to the previous correspondence in order to resolve it. This is because the essential point which is in dispute is not the meaning of the words and phrases used in the . . agreement but the circumstances in which it was intended to apply. The ordinary rules for the construction of written documents, including contracts such as that entered into in the present case, exclude reference to extrinsic evidence, unless there is an ambiguity in the words used which requires to be resolved by the use of such evidence. . But . . it is legitimate to look to the surrounding circumstances and see what was the intention of the parties, expressed in the words used, as they were with regard to the particular circumstances and facts with regard to which they were used . . We were referred by the pursuers' counsel to a number of cases where it was recognised that extrinsic evidence was admissible to identify something mentioned in the contract, such as a person, thing or document referred to in it . . The purpose of such evidence is not to modify the contract but to apply it to the facts as explained by the extrinsic evidence."
1 Citers


 
Toomey v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd [1994] 2 Lloyd's Rep 516
1994
CA
Hobhouse LJ
Insurance, Contract
The word "reinsurance" is often used loosely simply to describe any contract of insurance which is placed by or for the benefit of an insurer, but it should be construed more properly to require the insurance of an insurable interest in the subject matter of an original insurance. "The Court must ask itself whether the contractual intention was that the exclusion should cover both the possible negligent grounds of liability as well as the non-negligent grounds."
Liability insurance is a species of original insurance whereby an assured insures the risk of his becoming liable to others: "The element of ‘liability’ was effectively introduced into this branch of insurance by the attempts of insurers, through the use of special clauses, to get round the need to prove their loss by proving an insured loss of the original subject matter. The history of this part of the law is reviewed in the judgments of the Court of Appeal in Insurance Company of Africa -v- Scor (UK) Reinsurance Co Limited [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.312. The original form of the relevant clause required reinsurers ‘to pay as may be paid thereon’ a wording which Mr Justice Matthew in Chippendale -v- Holt (1895) 1 Com Cas 157 held only went to the quantum of any payment that had been made by the reinsured, not to the question whether a loss covered by the original insurance had ever taken place. The market then introduced the clause which required the reinsurers to ‘follow the settlement’ of the reassured. This clause was successful in requiring the reassured to accept any bona fide settlements made by the reassured with the original assured. The position was summarised by Lord Justice Robert Goff in Scor at [1985] 1 Lloyd’s rep at p.330 .. the effect of a clause binding reinsurers to follow settlements of the insurers, is that the reinsurers agree to indemnify insurers in the event that they settle any claim by their assured .. provided that the claim as so recognised by them falls within the risks covered by the policy of reinsurance as a matter of law and provided also that in settling the claim the insurers have acted honestly and have taken all proper and business like steps in making the settlement . . . Over the years, Judges have on a number of occasions, when dealing with reinsurance policies containing various types of settlement or payment clauses used the language of indemnification in respect of liabilities . . . In my judgment these references to liability must not be read out of context. They derive in part from particular reinsurance clauses which have been included in policies and from the basic proposition that a reinsured must prove a loss and must give the reinsurer the benefit of all rights of subrogation. These, and similar, statements do not alter the character of reinsurance or make it into something which is a mere liability insurance."
Hobhouse LJ referred to the principle in Hooley Hill Rubber and said: "It is also necessary that the court should have regard to previous decisions of the courts upon the same or similar wording. Parties to a commercial contract are to be taken to have contracted against a background which includes the previous decisions upon the construction of similar contracts."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Daks Simpson Group plc v Kuiper 1994 SLT 689
1994

Lord Sutherland
Scotland, Contract
The creditor sought summary judgment for an account for commissions earned. In a 'without prejudice' letter the defendant's director said that he was prepared to accept that he had received such commissions in stated amounts. Held: Lord Sutherland: "I see no objection in principle to a clear admission being used in subsequent proceedings, even though the communication in which it appears is stated to be without prejudice." and " 'Without prejudice' in my view means, without prejudice to the whole rights and pleas of the party making the statement. If, however, someone makes a clear and unequivocal admission or statement of fact, it is difficult to see what rights or pleas could be attached to such a statement or admission other than perhaps to deny the truth of the admission which was made. I see no objection in principle to a clear admission being used in subsequent proceedings, even though the communication in which it appears is stated to be without prejudice. I would adopt what is said by Lord Wylie in Watson-Towers and the Canadian view expressed in Kirschbaum."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Bookmakers' Afternoon Greyhound Services Ltd v Wilf Gilbert (Staffordshire) Ltd [1994] FSR 723
1994

Aldous J
Contract, Equity
The bookmaker defendant received a broadcast information service for which he was prepared to pay. That service carried another information service ("BAGS") for which the second provider also sought payment. The bookmaker was not prepared to pay for that, and said so. However the two services were not severable - one could not receive the first without the second. BAGS sought to claim from the bookmaker inter alia on the footing that he had received a service, benefited from it and knew that BAGS wanted payment for it in the sense that it was not free. Held: Aldous J asked and answered the question as follows: "Does the law impose a duty upon a person to pay, when he receives and uses a service knowing that it is not being offered free; when he makes it clear to the provider of the service that he does not want the service and that he will not pay for it? The answer is, I believe, no . . When a party makes it clear to the provider of a service that he will not pay for it or does not want it, then it cannot be against the conscience of that man that he should refuse to pay for the service." and "If the provider of the service knows that the recipient does not intend to pay, he cannot complain if the recipient does not ultimately pay. In such circumstances, the law will not help him to obtain recompense unless he has some proprietary or contractual right."
1 Citers


 
Aggeliki Charis Compania Maritima SA v Pagnan SpA The Angelic Grace [1994] 1 Lloyds Rep 168
1994
QBD
Rix J
Transport, Contract, Arbitration
The court considered whether a claim for a collision between two ships was governed by an arbitration clause which read "all disputes from time to time arising out of this contract shall . . be referred to the arbitrament of two arbitrators carrying on business in London." Held: The proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction were to be restrained by reason of agreement to submit to arbitration in England.
Rix J said: "collision claims I n the present case raised disputes which are within the arbitration clause. To some extent the claims in contract and in tort are true alternatives (for example the charterers' counterclaim). To some extent they may not be true alternatives, but they clearly overlap (as in the owners' claims for breach of the warranty of safety and for fault in collision) In any event all claims and cross-claims arise out of the same incident, the identical set of facts which have to be investigated by the arbitrators . . The parties clearly contemplated that a collision or other accident of navigation could give rise to a charterparty dispute."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Society of Lloyds v Clementson, Same v Mason Times, 11 January 1994; [1995] CLC 117
11 Jan 1994
ComC

Insurance, Contract
An undertaking given on joining Lloyds is a sufficiently binding contract.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Little v Courage Ltd Times, 19 January 1994
19 Jan 1994
ChD

Landlord and Tenant, Contract
The pub tenant had an option to renew his lease, subject to agreeing with the brewer a business plan and agreement. He notified the landlord that he wished to renew but the landlord did not himself present any plan and agreement, or obtain one, but instead declined to grant a new lease on the grounds that no new plan or agreement had been entered into. Held: A condition precedent for a plan which was unfulfilled defeated a right to a new lease.
1 Citers


 
Transag Haulage Ltd (In Admin Receivership) v Leyland Daf Finance Plc and Another Ind Summary, 31 January 1994; Times, 15 January 2004; [1994] 2 BCLC 88
31 Jan 1994
ChD
Knox J
Insolvency, Contract
Hire-purchase agreements for the hire of three lorries were entered into by Transag, a haulier, between January and May 1991. The price for the three lorries was £177,333, with down payments totalling £69,333 and the balance (for each vehicle) due by 36 monthly payments of £1000. Transag went into administrative receivership in November 1993, when only about £14,000 remained to be paid and the lorries were worth about £67,000. The agreements were in standard form with provision for termination by the owner after a default, which included receivership. Provisions for termination, included return of the vehicles to the owner and an immediate liability for outstanding instalments; and "If the hirer (having duly observed and performed all the terms and conditions of this agreement whether expressed or implied, and having paid all sums due under this agreement) shall pay to the owner the sum of £5 the hiring thereby constituted shall determine and the hirer shall become the absolute owner of the goods but until such time the goods shall remain the sole property of the owner and the hirer shall be a mere bailee thereof." Transag requested relief from forfeiture. Held: The case was "one of those rare cases" where it would be right for the court to exercise its discretion and grant relief on terms that the outstanding instalments were to be paid within seven days. A hirer might be given given equitable relief in respect of its proprietary rights despite its receivership. The court should look at the extent of financial defaults, the extent of any disproportionate loss which would be incurred for either owner or hirer, and any substantial windfall profit which might accrue to the owner.
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Pan Ocean Shipping Ltd v Creditcorp Ltd; HL 1-Feb-1994 - Independent, 01 February 1994; [1994] 1 Lloyds Rep 365; [1994] 1 WLR 161; [1994] 1 All ER 470
 
Pan Ocean Shipping Co Ltd v Creditcorp Ltd Times, 01 February 1994
1 Feb 1994
CA

Contract
(The Trident Beauty) Assignee not obliged to repay advance payment for non-performance.
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 HM Attorney-General v Associated Newspapers Ltd and Others; HL 4-Feb-1994 - Gazette, 02 March 1994; Independent, 09 February 1994; Times, 04 February 1994; [1994] 2 AC 238; [1994] UKHL 1; [1994] 1 All ER 556; [1994] COD 275; [1994] 2 WLR 277; (1994) 99 Cr App R 131
 
Skilton v Sullivan Gazette, 01 June 1994; Ind Summary, 16 May 1994; Times, 25 March 1994
18 Mar 1994
CA
Beldam LJ
Contract
The seller of a quantity of Koi carp sent the buyer an invoice for trout. The supply of Koi carp is chargeable to VAT but the supply of trout is not. When the seller sued for the price, he was met with a plea that the contract was illegal as being a fraud on the Revenue. Held: At the time the contract was entered into there was no intention to defraud the Revenue and although the subsequent sending of the invoice for trout was an unlawful act, the seller was not relying on that act to recover the price. An intention not to account for VAT did not vitiate it.
Beldam LJ said: "In a case in which one party to a contract seeks performance of an obligation under the contract by the other party, it is now well established that the contract entered into with the object of committing an illegal act is unenforceable. If both parties enter that contract with that objective, neither can enforce it. If one of the parties does so and the other is unaware of the illegal purpose the party whose object is illegal cannot enforce the obligation of the other. "
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Robert Leonard Developments Limited v Wright Unreported, 23 March 1994
23 Mar 1994
CA
Dillon LJ, Henry LJ
Contract, Equity, Land
The terms expressly agreed by the parties provided for the grant of a lease and the sale of the contents of the property. There was a single agreement for the lease and the contents. The written document did not incorporate the terms as to the sale of the contents and so did not comply with section 2. Held: Rectification of the written document was ordered so as to include the terms as to the sale of the contents, with the result that the written document as rectified did comply with section 2. Dillon LJ remarked that the availability of rectification in that case was "obvious" and "straightforward".
Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 2
1 Citers



 
 Balfour Beatty Construction (Scotland) Ltd v Scottish Power Plc; HL 23-Mar-1994 - Times, 23 March 1994; [1994] UKHL 11; [1994] CLC 321; 1994 SC (HL) 20; 1994 SLT 807
 
Owners of Cargo On K H Enterprise v Owners of Pioneer Container Times, 29 March 1994; Gazette, 11 May 1994; [1994] 2 AC 324
29 Mar 1994
PC
Lord Goff
Transport, Commonwealth, Contract, Agency
Owners who were claiming under a bailment must accept the terms of a sub-bailment to which it had agreed. This result is both principled and just. A sub-bailee can only be said for these purposes to have voluntarily taken into his possession the goods of another if he has sufficient notice that a person other than a bailee is interested in the goods so that it can properly be said that (in addition to his duties to the bailee) he has, by taking the goods into his custody, assumed towards that other person the responsibility for the goods which is characteristic of a bailee. This they believe to be the underlying principle.
Where an exclusive jurisdiction clause exists, a party who seeks a stay brought in breach of that agreement to refer disputes to a named forum, will have to show strong cause
Lord Goff asked whether an exclusive jurisdiction clause in a bill of lading issued by a sub-bailee was binding on the cargo owner, and said: "Here is a ship, upon which the goods are loaded in a large number of containers; indeed, one container may contain goods belonging to a number of cargo owners. One incident may affect goods owned by several cargo owners, or even (as here) all the cargo owners with goods on board. Common sense and practical convenience combine to demand that all of these claims should be dealt with in one jurisdiction, in accordance with one system of law. If this cannot be achieved, there may be chaos. Much expense may be wasted on litigation in a number of different jurisdictions, as indeed happened in the present case, where there was litigation in eight other countries as well as Hong Kong and Taiwan. There is however no international regime designed to produce a uniformity of jurisdiction and governing law in the case of a multiplicity of claims of this kind. It is scarcely surprising therefore that shipowners seek to achieve uniformity of treatment in respect of all such claims, by clauses designed to impose an exclusive jurisdiction and an agreed governing law . . Within reason, such an attempt must be regarded with a considerable degree of sympathy and understanding . . Their Lordships do not consider that it can possibly be said that the incorporation of such a clause in a bill of lading is per se unreasonable."
1 Citers


 
Bovis Homes Ltd v Oakcliff Investment Corporation and Another Ind Summary, 02 May 1994
2 May 1994
ChD

Contract
Time will be of essence for simpler clauses relating to one event.


 
 Barclays Bank Plc v Fairclough Building Ltd; CA 11-May-1994 - Gazette, 29 June 1994; Times, 11 May 1994; [1994] EWCA Civ 3
 
Hughes v Asset Managers Plc Ind Summary, 13 June 1994; [1994] EWCA Civ 14; [1995] 3 All ER 669; [1994] CLC 556
13 May 1994
CA
Nourse, Hirst, Saville LJJ
Financial Services, Financial Services, Contract
The appellants had entered into discretionary investment management agreements wth the respondent. The investments made a substantial losss which the appellants sought to recover, saying that the agreements were void under the 1958 Act. Held: The absence of a licence did not avoid an agreement needing a licence.
The claimants had put money with the defendants to invest. The markets fell, and they lost substantially. They now sought recovery saying that the asset management agreement was invalid and void under section 1 in that the person who signed the agreement for the defendants was not himself authorised at the time. Held: The claimants appeal failed. The Act did not have the effect that non-compliance would render the contract void.
Prevention of Frauds (Investment) Act 1958 1
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
E E Caledonia Ltd v Orbit Valve Plc Times, 30 May 1994; [1994] 1 WLR 1515
30 May 1994
CA
Steyn LJ
Contract
A clause providing for an indemnity against any claim arising from the manner of performance was not to be construed to cover negligence. "The printed conditions in the agreement in this case were plainly drafted by a lawyer. Why was an express reference to negligence not inserted? Similar questions have been posed on a number of occasions. Why do draftsmen not take note of the impact of a clear and consistent line of judicial decisions? For my part I have no doubt that the draftsman on the Underground to whom such a question was addressed would say "one does not want to frighten off one or other of the parties." Omissions of express reference to negligence tend to be deliberate."
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Panayiotou and Others v Sony Music Entertainment (UK) Ltd (1); ChD 24-Jun-1994 - Times, 30 June 1994; Independent, 24 June 1994
 
Darlington Borough Council v Wiltshier Northern Ltd and Others Times, 04 July 1994; Independent, 29 June 1994; Gazette, 12 October 1994; [1995] 1 WLR 68
29 Jun 1994
CA
Dillon, Waite and Steyn LJJ
Contract, Construction
The council owned land on which it wanted to build a recreational centre. Construction contracts were entered into not by the council but by a finance company, the building contractors being the respondents Wiltshier Northern Ltd. The finance company then assigned to the council its rights under the building contracts, and the council claimed damages from the builders for breach of the contracts. The builders took the point that the council, as assignee, had no greater rights under the contracts than the finance company had and that, as the finance company did not own the site, it had suffered no loss. Held: A third party may sue on a contract to recover damages for defects if the benefit of a building contract was intended for them and had been assigned to him. Where there is a right to have an assignment of any cause of action accruing to the employer against the contractor, the exception in Albazero may still apply so as to enable the assignee to recover substantial damages. The fact that the innocent party did not receive the bargain for which he contracted is itself a loss: "he suffers a loss of bargain or of expectation interest."
Steyn LJ: "in the case of a building contract, the prima facie rule is cost of cure, i.e., the cost of remedying the defect: East Ham Corporation v. Bernard Sunley & Sons Ltd. [19661 A.C. 406. But where the cost of remedying the defects involves expense out of all proportion to the benefit which could accrue from it, the court is entitled to adopt the alternative measure of difference of the value of the works . . ."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Thomas Witter v TBP Industries Ltd Ind Summary, 08 August 1994; [1996] 2 All ER 573
15 Jul 1994
ChD
Jacob J
Contract, Torts - Other
An award of damages for misrepresentation required that there had at some time been a right of rescission, not necessarily a continuing right to rescind.
An acknowledgement of non-reliance clause has become a common part of modern commercial contracts. An entire agreement clause limits the terms of the parties' agreement to their written agreement and prevents a representation from assuming contractual force, but that it does not, without more, preclude or exclude liability for misrepresentation. As to the clause under which a party acknowledged that he had not been induced to enter the subject agreement by any representation, save those specified in a schedule.
Discussing the clause at issue, Jacob J said: "The problem is its scope. The Act of 1967 calls for consideration of the term as such. And it refers to 'any liability' and 'any misrepresentation'. It does not call for consideration of the term so far as it applies to the misrepresentation in question or the kind of misrepresentation in question. The term is not severable: it is either reasonable as a whole or not. So one must consider its every potential effect. The clause does not seek to distinguish between fraudulent, negligent, or innocent misrepresentation. If it excludes liability for one kind of misrepresentation it does so for all. I cannot think it reasonable to exclude liability for fraudulent misrepresentation . . It may well be, with a different clause, reasonable to exclude liability for innocent misrepresentation or even negligent misrepresentation. But since the width of this clause is too great I would have held it failed the requirement of reasonableness and was of no effect.
A possible route round this latter objection would be to construe the clause so that it did not apply to a fraudulent misrepresentation. This approach is artificial. It is unnecessary now that the 1977 Act exists to destroy unreasonable exclusion clauses. The construction involves creating an implied exception in the case of fraud. What about an implied exclusion of negligence? Or gross negligence? It is not for the law to fudge a way for an exclusion to be valid. If a party wants to exclude liability for certain sorts of misrepresentation, it must spell those out clearly".
Misrepresentation Act 1967
1 Citers


 
National Trust v Haden Young Ltd Independent, 31 August 1994; Times, 11 August 1994
11 Aug 1994
CA

Contract, Construction
A sub-contractor was liable for a negligent fire despite the owner's fire insurance. The contractor was not employer liable for a sub-contractors negligence under the JCT.

 
Crown Estate Commissioners v John Mowlem and Co Ltd Ind Summary, 05 September 1994
5 Sep 1994
CA

Contract, Construction
Construction of JCT contract - can not extend time for arbitration reference.

 
Hodgkinson v Simms [1994] 3 SCR 377; 117 DLR (4th) 161; [1994] 9 WWR 609; 97 BCLR (2d) 1; 16 BLR (2d) 1; 171 NR 245; 22 CCLT (2d) 1; 49 BCAC 1; 57 CPR (3d) 1; 5 ETR (2d) 1; [1994] CarswellBC 438; AZ-94111096; JE 94-1560; [1994] SCJ No 84 (QL); [1994] ACS no 84; 50 ACWS (3d) 469; 80 WAC 1; 95 DTC 5135
30 Sep 1994

La Forest, L'Heureux-Dube, Sopinka, Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ
Commonwealth, Contract, Damages, Trusts
Supreme Court of Canada - Fiduciary duty -- Non-disclosure -- Damages -- Financial adviser -- Client insisting that adviser not be involved in promoting -- Adviser not disclosing involvement in projects -- Client investing in projects suggested by adviser -- Ultimate decision as to whether or not to invest that of client -- Substantial losses incurred during period of economic downturn -- Whether or not fiduciary duty on part of adviser -- If so, calculation of damages.
Contracts -- Contract for independent services -- Breach by failure to disclose -- Calculation of damages.
La Forest J, giving the judgment of the majority, drew the distinction between fiduciary relationships and commercial interactions governed by the common law, the former being characterised by one party's duty to act in the other's best interests, and often by power on the one hand and dependency on the other, whereas the common law generally respected the pursuit of self-interest. The proper approach to damages for breach of a fiduciary duty was said to be restitutionary. On that basis, the majority of the court concluded that the claimant was entitled to be compensated for the loss sustained on investments which he had made on the advice of a fiduciary who had failed to disclose a conflict of interest, notwithstanding that the loss had resulted from an unforeseen general economic downturn.
1 Citers

[ Canlii ]
 
Formica Ltd v Export Credits Guarantee Department Times, 19 October 1994
19 Oct 1994
ComC
Colman J
Contract, Litigation Practice
A guarantor was entitled to see documents created by the company in chasing a debt. Procedure - specific discovery - common interest relied upon by applicant for discovery - insurance - documents brought into existence in furtherance of a common interest.
1 Citers



 
 Torvald Klaveness A/S v Arni Maritime Corporation (The Gregos); HL 28-Oct-1994 - Independent, 15 November 1994; Times, 28 October 1994; [1994] 1 WLR 1465; [1995] 1 Lloyd's Rep 1
 
Philips Electronic Grant Public Sa and Another v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd Ind Summary, 31 October 1994; [1995] EMLR 472
31 Oct 1994
CA
Sir Thomas Bingham M.R., Stuart-Smith and Leggatt L.JJ
Contract
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 been reached in the performance of the contract. So the court comes to the task of implication with the benefit of hindsight, and it is tempting for the court then to fashion a term which will reflect the merits of the situation as they then appear. Tempting, but wrong."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
In Re Highway Foods International Ltd (In Administrative Receivership) Times, 01 November 1994
1 Nov 1994
ChD

Contract
A vendor can rely on title retention clauses against a sub-purchaser who has not paid.
Factors Act 1889 2(1) 9

 
Nissan Uk Ltd v Nissan Manufacturing (Uk) Ltd Ind Summary, 07 November 1994
7 Nov 1994
CA

Contract
A term insisted on during negotiations was deemed accepted when the contract was implemented.


 
 St Albans City and District Council v International Computers Ltd; QBD 11-Nov-1994 - Times, 11 November 1994; (1995) 21 FSR 686
 
Masport Ltd v. Morrison Industries Ltd [1994] UKPC 39
14 Nov 1994
PC

Contract
(New Zealand)
[ Bailii ]
 
Motor Vehicles Dealers Institute Incorporated v UDC Finance (1991) Ltd Co [1994] UKPC 41
15 Nov 1994
PC

Contract
(New Zealand)
[ Bailii ]
 
Halliday v Lyall and Scott Ltd Times, 16 December 1994
16 Dec 1994
OHCS

Contract
A hire clause making him responsible for third party claims excluded the owner's indemnity.

 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.