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: 2000 To: 2000

This page lists 78 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.

 
The Chitral [2000] 1 Lloyds Rep 529
2000

Steel J
Contract, Transport
The PNSC bill of lading named the consignee of goods carried on the defendant’s vessel. Goods were damaged during the voyage. The bill of lading was otherwise in conventional form, but the box in which the consignee was to be named said "If order state notify party" and no notify party was stated. It was nevertheless endorsed to another party. The defendant carrier said that having endorsed the bill, the claimant had no title to sue. The claimant said that its endorsement was ineffective because, since no notify party had been stated, the bill was not to order but a straight bill of lading. The carrier said that the bill remained an order bill because the general printed language of the bill said that delivery was to be "unto the above-mentioned consignee or to his or their assigns". Held: The argument was rejected. The form was drafted to permit its use either as a straight or order bill, and that therefore the more general language "consignee or…assigns" should be understood as subject to the implicit words "as applicable"
1 Citers


 
The Owners And/Or Demise Charterer Of The Ship Or Vessel 'Starsin' v The Owners Of The Cargo Lately Laden Aboard The Ship Or Vessel 'Starsin' [2000] 1 Lloyd's Rep 85
2000
ComC
Colman J
Transport, Contract

1 Citers


 
Holaw (470) Ltd v Stockton Estates Ltd [2000] EGCS 89
2000


Contract
In a sale and immediate sub-sale of land, the contracts used different standard terms and conditions. The result was that the sub-sale excluded a right of access to the property.


 
 Clark v Nomura International plc; 2000 - [2000] IRLR 766
 
Brigden v American Express Bank Ltd [2000] IRLR 94
2000

Morland J
Employment, Contract
A clause providing that the employer could dismiss an employee in the first two years of employment without implementing the disciplinary procedure was not void under the 1977 Act. Section 3 extended to contracts of employment and although the meaning was "artificial", an employee dealt "as a consumer" with his employer. However the claim failed as the clause in question did not come within clause 3 (2) of the 1977 Act, not being a contract term excluding or restricting liability of the employer in respect of breach of contract.
Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 3
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Jolley v Carmel Limited [2000] 2 EGLR 154
2000

Kim Lewison QC
Contract
Kim Lewison QC said: "Where a contract is conditional upon the grant of some permission, the courts often imply terms about obtaining it. There is a spectrum of possible implications. The implication might be one to use best endeavours to obtain it (see Fischer v Toumazos [1991] 2 EGLR 204), to use all reasonable efforts to obtain it (see Hargreaves Transport v Lynch [1969] 1 WLR 215) or to use reasonable efforts to do so. The term alleged in this case [to use reasonable efforts] is at the lowest end of the spectrum."
1 Citers



 
 Oceano Grupo Editorial SA v Quintero; ECJ 2000 - [2000] ECR I-4941

 
 Avon Insurance v Swire Fraser Ltd; 2000 - [2000] Lloyd's LR IR 535; [2000] 1 ALL ER Comm 573
 
Association of British Travel Agents Ltd v British Airways Plc [2000] 2 Lloyd's LR 209
2000
CA
Sedley LJ
Contract
Sedley LJ described the common-law rule of contra preferentem, that any doubt as to the meaning of contractual words will be resolved by construing them against the party that put them forward, as "a principle not only of law but of justice" and said that its origin and first purpose was "to limit the power of a dominant contractor who is able to deal on his own take-it-or-leave-it terms with others".
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich A G v Crossseas Shipping Ltd and Others [2000] 1 WLR 1135
2000
CA

Agency, Contract
The claimant creditor bank made changes to the guarantee executed by the guarantee without its approval and after it had been signed and duly executed, by inserting the details of a service agent. Held: The insertion did not work to alter the guarantor's liability, and had not been prejudicial to its legal rights and obligations and accordingly was not material. The guarantee remained enforceable. An alteration to the contract after signature did not invalidate it unless it was material in the sense of being "potentially prejudicial to the legal rights or obligations of the affected party".
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Humphreys v Oxford University Times, 18 January 2000
18 Jan 2000
CA
Roch LJ
Employment, Contract
In a transfer of undertakings, where the employee could show that the transfer of his employment to a new employer would lead to a real detriment, the transfer operated to entitle the employee to terminate his contract vis a vis the first employer and to claim damages for wrongful dismissal. The regulations had to be read so as to comply with the directive under which they had been made, and the intention of the directive was to protect rights, not to remove them.
Roch LJ discussed the need to apply the ECJ rulings on the interpretation of the Acquired Rights Directive: "That that is the correct reading and provides the answer to the first question is concluded, in my judgment, by the requirement that the Regulations must be read in a way which gives effect to the Directive as interpreted by the European Court.
Turning to the second question, 'against whom is the employee to obtain his remedy?' The European Court has decided that where a transfer of an undertaking takes place an employee is entitled to decide not to continue the contract of employment or employment relationship with the transferee. The Directive cannot be interpreted as obliging the employee to continue his employment relationship with the transferee. Where the employee decides not to continue with the transferee, the court has left it to Member States to provide whether in such cases the contract of employment or employment relationship must be regarded as terminated either by the employee or the employer. Member States may also provide that the contract of employment or employment relationship should be maintained with the transferor."
Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (1981 No 1794)
1 Citers


 
Pappadakis v Pappadakis Times, 19 January 2000
19 Jan 2000
ChD

Equity, Contract
Where a party sought rectification of a contract to supply into the contract an element without which the contract was intrinsically invalid, that application could only succeed if there was clear and convincing evidence that the parties had intended another effect, and precisely what that effect was. Here an assignment to unidentified trustees which was ineffective because of the uncertainty could not be repaired since the evidence required was not available.

 
Motis Exports Ltd v Dampskibsselskabet Af 1912 Akleselskab ('the Motis) Times, 26 January 2000; Gazette, 20 January 2000; [2000] 1 Lloyds Rep 211 (CA; [2000] 1 All ER (Comm) 91
20 Jan 2000
CA
Stuart-Smith LJ
Transport, Contract, Commercial
Shippers were liable under a bill of lading. The goods had been obtained from them fraudulently by means of forged bills of lading. They claimed under an exemption clause in the contract, but the claim failed since the exclusions from liability for loss or damage whilst in their possession before loading or after discharge, did not excuse them for what was a deliberate if mistaken act. Under a bill of lading contract a shipowner is both entitled and bound to deliver the goods against production of an original bill of lading, provided he has no notice of any other claim or better title to the goods.
1 Cites


 
James Anthony Sinclair v British Telecommunications Plc (By Original Action) [2000] EWCA Civ 6
21 Jan 2000
CA

Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
Mamidoil-Jetoil Greek Petroleum Company Sa v Okta Crude Oil Refinery Ad [2000] EWHC 208 (Comm); [2000] 1 Lloyd's Rep 554
26 Jan 2000
ComC
Thomas J
Contract
The parties had contracted for the exclusive supply of oil to Yugoslavia.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Government of Zanzibar v British Aerospace (Lancaster House) Ltd [2000] EWHC 221 (Comm); [2000] 1 WLR 2333; [2000] CLC 735
26 Jan 2000
ComC
Raymond Jack QC J
Torts - Other, Contract
The claimant had bought an airplane from the defendant in 1992. It brought an action in misrepresentation. The defendant asked that it be struck out as without chances of success for delay and breach of the court rules. Held. The court asked whether the right to claim damages in misrpresentation survived the loss of a right of rescission.
Misrepresentation Act 1967 82(2)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Rank Enterprises Limited; Rank Shipping Limited; Rank Resources Limited and Rank Maritime Limited and Gerard [2000] EWCA Civ 15
27 Jan 2000
CA
Kennedy, Thorpe, Mance LJJ
Contract
Construction of guarantee
[ Bailii ]

 
 Jones v Society of Lloyd's; Standen v Same; ChD 2-Feb-2000 - Times, 02 February 2000
 
Columbia Tristar Home Video (International) Inc v Polygram Film International BV (Formerly Manifesto Film Sales BV) [2000] EWCA Civ 32
8 Feb 2000
CA

Contract, Media
The court considered a contract requiring access to be given to accounts records for auditing licence fees.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Gillatt v Sky Television Limited (Formerly Sky Television Plc) and Sky Subscriber Services Limited [2000] 2 BCLC 103; [2000] EWCA Civ 34; [2000] 1 All ER (Comm) 461
9 Feb 2000
CA
Pill, Mummery LJJ, Sir Ronald Waterhouse
Contract
Construction of a contractual term relating to the determination of the open market value of shares in a private company
[ Bailii ]
 
Sinochem International Oil (London) Co Ltd v Mobil Sales and Supply Corporaton and Another [2000] EWCA Civ 47; [2000] 1 All ER (Comm) 474; [2000] 1 Lloyd's Rep 339; [2000] CLC 878
17 Feb 2000
CA

Contract

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Spice Girls Ltd v Aprilia World Service Bv [2000] EWHC Ch 140
24 Feb 2000
ChD

Contract, Torts - Other
The claimants worked together as a five girl pop group. The defendants had signed a sponsorship agreement, but now resisted payment saying that one of the five, Geri, had given notice to leave the group, substantially changing what had been promised. The girls acknowledged that Geri had said she would leave, but insisted that no real intention to leave had existed. Held: Generally, a person who is about to enter into an agreement is under no duty to disclose material facts which he knows but which the other party does not know. Here the group knew that the other party was relying upon a representation, and could not discharge the requirement to show that they did not know of its falsity, and were liable in damages to the defendant.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Pegler Ltd v Wang (Uk) Ltd [2000] EWHC Technology 137; 1997 TCC No 219
25 Feb 2000
TCC
Bowsher QC J
Contract, Damages
The claimant had acquired a computer system from the defendant, which had failed. It was admitted that the contract had been broken, and the court set out to decide the issue of damages. Held: Even though Wang had been ready to amend one or two of its standard terms and conditions, the remaining conditions were incorporated wholesale into the contract and therefore the contract fell within s3 of the 1977 Act. It was unreasonable to impose the standard terms on Pegler, who had no choice but to accept them. The exclusion of liability clauses relied on by Wang are unenforceable. As to damages, Pegler had failed to keep records of the time taken to deal with the issues which arose. The court considered in detail and at length the different heads of recovery including for lost management time. Rectification was awarded and damages assessed.
Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 3
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Training for Tomorrow (Holdings) Ltd v The Corporate Services Group Plc [2000] EWHC 216 (Comm)
28 Feb 2000
ComC
Langley J
Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
Sir Elton Hercules John, Happenstance Ltd, William A Bong Ltd, J Bondi Ltd, Eversheds (A Firm) v Express Newspapers, Rosie Boycott, Rachel Baird [2000] EWHC QB 130
3 Mar 2000
QBD

Contract, Media

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Zoan v Rouamba Times, 07 March 2000; [2000] 1 WLR 1500
7 Mar 2000
CA

Consumer, Contract
A document could not be construed other than in its clear words even though one party had clearly intended the result sought. A hire agreement would be unenforceable under the Act, depending upon whether payments were made within a year of the agreement. A payment on the day after could not be included, the agreement was not exempt, and being wrongly executed, was unenforceable, and its cost was not recoverable from another party after an accident.
Consumer Credit Act 1974
1 Citers


 
Anglo Group Plc, Winther Brown and Co Ltd v Winter Brown and Co Ltd, BML (Office Computers) Ltd, Anglo Group Plc, BML (Office Computers) Ltd [2000] EWHC Technology 127; (2000) 144 Sol Jo LB 197
8 Mar 2000
TCC
Toulmin QC J
Litigation Practice, Contract, Agency
Contract - Contract for provision of computer services - purchaser contract with finance company - duty of co-operation to be implied in computer contracts - practice - responsibilities of expert witnesses generally - whether computer company liable to purchaser - whether purchaser liable to finance company.
The parties disputed the delivery and quality of a computer system. The buyer complained of many defects and eventually sought to reject the system. Held: Anglo's claim succeeded. The court provided updated Ikarian Reefer guidelines for expert witnesses. The court criticised one expert witness for failing to keep separate his role as negotiator and witness. It is normally inappropriate to seek to combine the two.
The court gave Ikarian Reefer guidelines updated to comply with the CPR:
"1.An expert witness should at all stages in the procedure, on the basis of the evidence as he understands it, provide independent assistance to the court and the parties by way of objective unbiased opinion in relation to matters within his expertise. This applies as much to the initial meetings of experts as to evidence at trial. An expert witness should never assume the role of an advocate.
2. The expert's evidence should normally be confined to technical matters on which the court will be assisted by receiving an explanation, or to evidence of common professional practice. The expert witness should not give evidence or opinions as to what the expert himself would have done in similar circumstances or otherwise seek to usurp the role of the judge.
3.He should co-operate with the expert of the other party or parties in attempting to narrow the technical issues in dispute at the earliest possible stage of the procedure and to eliminate or place in context any peripheral issues. He should co-operate with the other expert(s) in attending without prejudice meetings as necessary and in seeking to find areas of agreement and to define precisely arrears of disagreement to be set out in the joint statement of experts ordered by the court.
4.The expert evidence presented to the court should be, and be seen to be, the independent product of the expert uninfluenced as to form or content by the exigencies of the litigation.
5.An expert witness should state the facts or assumptions upon which his opinion is based. He should not omit to consider material facts which could detract from his concluded opinion.
6.An expert witness should make it clear when a particular question or issue falls outside his expertise.
7.Where an expert is of the opinion that his conclusions are based on inadequate factual information he should say so explicitly.
8.An expert should be ready to reconsider his opinion, and if appropriate, to change his mind when he has received new information or has considered the opinion of the other expert . He should do so at the earliest opportunity."
Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 9
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Edmonds v Lawson, Pardoe, and Del Fabbro; CA 10-Mar-2000 - Times, 16 March 2000; Gazette, 06 April 2000; [2000] All ER 31; [2000] EWCA Civ 69; [2000] 2 WLR 1091
 
Hotel Services Ltd v Hilton International Hotels (Uk) Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 74; [2000] BLR 235
15 Mar 2000
CA

Contract

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Munro and Another v Premier Associates Ltd Gazette, 16 March 2000
16 Mar 2000
ChD

Land, Contract
Property was agreed to be sold, but the land certificate was lost. A condition was added to the contract fixing the completion date as three days after notification of receipt of the new certificate. The parties agreed a date in anticipation of the certificate being received, but the purchaser did not wish to proceed for other reasons. A completion notice was served which he challenged, saying the notice had not been given. It was held that parties to such transactions were as much bound by estoppel and waiver as otherwise. The behaviour of the parties created such and the notice was effective.


 
 Close Asset Finance Ltd v Care Graphics Machinery Ltd; QBD 21-Mar-2000 - Times, 21 March 2000; Gazette, 23 March 2000
 
Interlink Express Parcels Ltd v Night Trunkers Ltd and Another Gazette, 23 March 2000
23 Mar 2000
ChD

Contract, Road Traffic
The claimant contracted to deliver parcels overnight. By a contract the defendant supplied drivers to carry out some of the work. The claimant sought a declaration that the contract was void. By virtue of the arrangement the defendant came to be operating the vehicles, and so needed a licence for carrying goods by road for hire or reward. The defendant had no such licence. It was held that the agreement was void. The first defendant remained the employer. He decided the routes, paid holiday pay and arranged stand ins.
Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995

 
Roger Thomas Donohue v Armco Inc and others [2000] EWCA Civ 94; [2000] 1 Lloyd's Rep 579; [2000] 1 All ER (Comm) 641; [2000] CLC 1090
29 Mar 2000
CA

Contract, Jurisdiction
The claimant sought an order restraining the defendants from pursuing a claim in America. The parties were party to a contract governed by English law, but the allegation was one of fraud, and the defendants said this was outside the provisions of the contract. Held: Where a remedy was available both in England and in a foreign jurisdiction, proceedings in the foreign jurisdiction would only be restrained by order here where the foreign proceedings were in some way abusive. An English court may decline an injunction or stay where there was an exclusive jurisdiction clause, but also claims outside the contract which would result in parallel and conflicting proceedings. In this situation there was an overwhelming advantage in securing one decision in the most appropriate forum, which was New York. Injunction refused under conditions.
Supreme Court Act 1981 37
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Zanzibar v British Aerospace (Lancaster House) Ltd Times, 31 March 2000; [1999] 1 Lloyd's Rep 387
31 Mar 2000
QBD
Stuart-Smith LJ
Contract, Torts - Other, Damages
In a contract for the purchase of airplanes, the plaintiff claimed misrepresentation, and as a result, rescission and damages. The issue was whether, once the right to rescind had been lost, any claim for damages had also lapsed under section 2(2). Held: The power to award damages was properly an alternative to rescission, which a judge could award where he felt that it was a more equitable solution. As an alternative, it fell with the claim for rescission.
Misrepresentation Act 1967 2(2)
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Society of Lloyd's v Twinn and another; CA 4-Apr-2000 - Times, 04 April 2000; Gazette, 14 April 2000
 
Spice Girls Ltd v Aprilla World Service BV Times, 05 April 2000
5 Apr 2000
ChD

Contract
It was possible through conduct to make representations which could induce the other party to enter into a contract. Here the contract was entered into at a time when one of the group had decided to leave, but in the period before the contract had been signed the group had attended publicity events on the basis that the five members of the group were to continue, and publicity material was based upon that representation.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Farley v Skinner Times, 14 April 2000; Gazette, 14 April 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 109
6 Apr 2000
CA

Damages, Environment, Contract
A surveyor was engaged to report on a property, and was specifically requested to advise on the levels of aircraft noise from a nearby airport which might affect the property. He failed to report on the proximity of a navigation beacon. Held: He was not liable for damages for the non-physical damage for discomfort and disturbance which ensued. For such damages to be awardable, the contract had one for the purposes of provision of leisure, relaxation or peace of mind.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Henry Boot Construction Ltd v GEC Alstom Combiined Cycles Ltd Times, 11 April 2000; Gazette, 28 April 2000
11 Apr 2000
CA

Contract, Construction
A contract in Standard Institute of Civil Engineers conditions provided that variations in materials should be costed for in line with the costings schedules. The fact that the schedules were in error did not mean that they could departed from. A second clause limiting the application to situations where this provided a reasonable effect could not apply unless the prerequisites of the subsequent clause also applied, and the alterations in materials or works were substantial.

 
Jyri Lehtonen and Castors Canada Dry Namur-Braine ASBL v Federation royale belge des societes de basket-ball ASBL (FRBSB) C-176/96; [2000] ECR I-2681; [2000] EUECJ C-176/96
13 Apr 2000
ECJ

European, Contract
Europa The need to provide an interpretation of Community law which will be of use to the national court makes it necessary that the national court define the factual and legal context of the questions it is asking or, at the very least, explain the factual circumstances on which those questions are based. Those requirements are of particular importance in certain areas, such as that of competition, where the factual and legal situations are often complex. The information provided in decisions making references must not only enable the Court to reply usefully but also give the governments of the Member States and other interested parties the opportunity to submit observations pursuant to Article 20 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. It is the Court's duty to ensure that that opportunity is safeguarded, bearing in mind that, by virtue of the abovementioned provision, only the decisions making references are notified to the interested parties. Having regard to the objectives of the Community, sport is subject to Community law in so far as it constitutes an economic activity within the meaning of Article 2 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 2 EC). That is the case with the activities of professional basketball players, where they work as paid employees or provide services for remuneration and those activities are effective and genuine activities and not such as to be regarded as purely marginal and ancillary. The Treaty provisions concerning freedom of movement for persons do not preclude rules or practices in the field of sport excluding foreign players from certain matches for reasons which are not of an economic nature, which relate to the particular nature and context of such matches and are thus of sporting interest only, as in the case of matches between national teams from different countries. That restriction on the scope of those provisions must, however, remain limited to its proper objective, and may not be relied on to exclude all sporting activity from the scope of the Treaty. The Community provisions on freedom of movement for persons and freedom to provide services not only apply to the action of public authorities but extend also to rules of any other nature aimed at regulating gainful employment and the provision of services in a collective manner. The abolition as between Member States of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons and freedom to provide services would be compromised if the abolition of State barriers could be neutralised by obstacles resulting from the exercise of their legal autonomy by associations or organisations not governed by public law. A professional basketball player who is a national of a Member State must be regarded as a worker within the meaning of Article 48 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) where, having entered into a contract of employment with a club in another Member State with a view to exercising gainful employment in that State, he thereby accepts an offer of employment actually made, within the meaning of Article 48(3)(a) of the Treaty. Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) precludes the application of rules laid down in a Member State by sporting associations which prohibit a basketball club from fielding players from other Member States in matches in the national championship, where they have been transferred after a specified date, if that date is earlier than the date which applies to transfers of players from certain non-member countries, unless objective reasons concerning only sport as such or relating to differences between the position of players from a federation in the European zone and that of players from a federation not in that zone justify such different treatment.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Clark v University of Lincolnshire and Humberside; CA 14-Apr-2000 - Times, 03 May 2000; [2000] 3 All ER 752; [2000] EWCA Civ 129; [2000] 1 WLR 1988
 
Davey v Williams and Another [2000] EWCA Civ 131
18 Apr 2000
CA
Peter Gibson, Henry, Mance LJJ
Contract, Company

[ Bailii ]
 
Portman Building Society v Dusangh and Others [2000] Lloyd's LR 19; [2000] EWCA Civ 142; [2000] 2 All ER (Comm) 221
19 Apr 2000
CA
Ward LJ, Millett LJ
Contract
The defendant sought to set aside an order for possession under a mortgage. Held: Where a case was strong enough on its face in terms of conduct and terms, unconscionable conduct could be inferred if there was no explanation offered to displace that inference.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Dowling and Rutter and Others v Abacus Frozen Foods Ltd Times, 26 April 2000; [2000] ScotCS 69
26 Apr 2000
OHCS
Lord Wheatley
Contract
In the case of a lawfully constructed contract which was fulfilled by unlawful means, the contract itself can still be enforceable. In each case it is for the court to assess the nature and quality of the illegality involved.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
Robinson v Commissioners of Customs and Excise Times, 28 April 2000
28 Apr 2000
QBD

Administrative, Contract, Customs and Excise
Customs offered a reward for information, but the offer was clearly not a certainty, and there had been no intention to create a contractual or legal relationship. The informant had been clearly told that the decision as to the award would not be made by the officer, but by his superior in that officer's discretion, and therefore no legal binding offer to make payment had been made.


 
 Taylor v Secretary of State for Scotland; HL 11-May-2000 - Times, 12 May 2000; [2000] UKHL 28

 
 Crantrave Ltd (In Liquidation) v Lloyd's Bank Plc; CA 18-May-2000 - Times, 24 April 2000; Gazette, 18 May 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 127; [2000] QB 917; [2000] 4 All ER 473; [2000] 3 WLR 877
 
Peregrine Fixed Income Ltd v Robinson Department Store Public Co Ltd [2000] EWHC Commercial 99
18 May 2000
ComC
The Honourable Mr Justice Moore-Bick
Contract
The claimant sought the determination of the court as to the interpretation of parts of a currency swap and derivatives agreement. Upon termination of the contract, it provided means to calculate the balances due between the parties, and the valuation to be placed upon certain investments. The claimants asserted that the strict method used in the contract provided a commercially unreasonable result. Alternative methods of calculation had been provided. The choice of method was to be determined according to whether one party was in default. The definition of 'Loss' is directed to identifying the loss suffered as a result of the termination of the transaction in question and is not concerned with the steps which taken to fund any payment required pursuant to Section 6(e) of the agreement. Held: A court should not see behaviour in the absence of any allegation of absence of good faith or as unjustified or involving a breach of contract, unless it is clear that the belief in which he acted was flawed in one of the ways identified in the Wednesbury case. The court could not think that anyone who had taken them into account could have concluded that the use of Market Quotation would produce a commercially reasonable result.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Clef Aquitaine Sarl and Another v Laporte Materials (Barrow) Ltd (Sued As Sovereign Chemical Industries Ltd) [2000] EWCA Civ 161; [2001] QB 488
18 May 2000
CA

Torts - Other, Contract
The defendants appealed a finding of fraudulent misrepresentation, saying that no damages had in fact flowed from any misrepresentation.
Misrepresentation Act 1967
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
ANC Limited v Clark Goldring and Page Limited Rodney J Griffiths
19 May 2000
CA

Contract

[ Bailii ] - [ ]
 
ANC Ltd v Clark Goldring and Page Ltd and Another Times, 31 May 2000
31 May 2000
CA

Contract, Insolvency
The assignment of the fruits of an action for damages was a sale of property within section 436 of the Act, it was not within the exemption for champerty provided by the Act to a liquidator which arose from the statutory power of sale. The assignment of a cause of action assigned the right to pursue an action, but an assignment of the fruits of an action took place only in equity, and the assignee acquired no interest in the action itself.
Insolvency Act 1986 436

 
Kwik Fit Insurance Services Ltd v Bull Information Systems Ltd, Graham Technology Plc [2000] EWHC Technology 88
23 Jun 2000
TCC

Contract

[ Bailii ]

 
 Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v McBains Cooper; TCC 27-Jun-2000 - [2000] EWHC Technology 85
 
A Meredith Jones and Co Ltd v Vangemar Shipping Co Ltd ("The Apostolis") [2000] EWCA Civ 213; [2000] 2 Lloyd's Rep 337; [2000] CLC 1488
11 Jul 2000
CA
Waller LJ,
Transport, Contract
The proper construction of a contractual clause must not consider that clause in isolation, but must consider the clause in the context of the contract as a whole.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Peter Lingham and Company v Lonnkvist [2000] EWCA Civ 215
12 Jul 2000
CA

Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
Tradigrain SA and Others v King Diamond Marine Limited The Spiros C [2000] EWCA Civ 217
13 Jul 2000
CA
Lord Justice Henry, Lord Justice Brooke And Lord Justice Rix
Transport, Contract
The owner of a ship, the defendant, sought payment direct. The time charterer had become insolvent, but the ship had been sub-chartered to the claimant. The owner sought to exercise his lien over the cargo, but the sub-charterer had discharged his own liabilities. Held: The ship owner was obliged to discharge, and to do so within a reasonable time. A general incorporation of a charter party's terms into a bill of lading only incorporates terms relating to the shipment, carriage and discharge of the cargo, and not other terms. Even if a term that a shipper is responsible for discharging can be implied into a standard bill of lading, a regime is not to be implied in a bill of lading which would excuse a shipper from liability for discharge and place it solely on a receiver or charterer.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Sandhu v Chauhan and Others [2000] EWCA Civ 223
20 Jul 2000
CA

Contract

[ Bailii ]

 
 Equitable Life Assurance Society v Hyman; HL 20-Jul-2000 - Times, 21 July 2000; Gazette, 03 August 2000; [2000] UKHL 39; [2000] 3 All ER 961; [2000] 3 WLR 529; [2002] 1 AC 408; [2001] Lloyds Rep IR 99; [2000] Pens LR 249; [2000] OPLR 101
 
Barry v Davies (T/A Heathcote Ball and Co) and Others Times, 31 August 2000; Gazette, 12 October 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 235
27 Jul 2000
CA
Pill LJ, Sir Murray Suart-Smith
Contract, Consumer, Damages, Agency, Contract
The claimant sought damages from an auctioneer who had failed to accept his bid, and withdrawn the items from the sale. Held: In an auction without reserve the auctioneer was not entitled to withdraw an item on the basis that the highest or only bid was too low. To do so was to put himself in a position as if he was bidding for the seller, and that was not allowed save under the Act. The auctioneer himself was liable in damages to the disappointed bidder in a sum equivalent to the market value less the rejected bid.
Sale of Goods Act 1979 57(4)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Barry v Davies (T/A Heathcote Ball and Co) and Others Times, 31 August 2000; Gazette, 12 October 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 235
27 Jul 2000
CA
Pill LJ, Sir Murray Suart-Smith
Contract, Consumer, Damages, Agency, Contract
The claimant sought damages from an auctioneer who had failed to accept his bid, and withdrawn the items from the sale. Held: In an auction without reserve the auctioneer was not entitled to withdraw an item on the basis that the highest or only bid was too low. To do so was to put himself in a position as if he was bidding for the seller, and that was not allowed save under the Act. The auctioneer himself was liable in damages to the disappointed bidder in a sum equivalent to the market value less the rejected bid.
Sale of Goods Act 1979 57(4)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
DSND Subsea Ltd v Petroleum Geo Services Asa [2000] EWHC 185 (TCC); [2001] BLR 23; [2000] BLR 530
28 Jul 2000
TCC
Dyson J
Contract, Torts - Other
Dyson J set out the principles applicable in establishing a pleading of commercial duress:
(i) Economic pressure can amount to duress, provided it may be characterised as illegitimate and has constituted a "but for" cause inducing the claimant to enter into the relevant contract or to make a payment. See Mance J in S.L. Huyton S.A. v Peter Cremer GmbH & Co [1999] 1 Lloyds Rep 620;
(ii) a threat to break a contract will generally be regarded as illegitimate, particularly where the defendant must know that it would be in breach of contract if the threat were implemented;
(iii) it is relevant to consider whether the claimant had a "real choice" or "realistic alternative" and could, if it had wished, equally well have resisted the pressure and, for example, pursued practical and effective legal redress. If there was no reasonable alternative, that may be very strong evidence in support of a conclusion that the victim of the duress was in fact influenced by the threat.
(iv) the presence, or absence, of protest, may be of some relevance when considering whether the threat had coercive effect. But, even the total absence of protest does not mean that the payment was voluntary.
More generally: "there must be pressure, (a) whose practical effect is that there is compulsion on, or lack of practical choice for, the victim; (b) which is illegitimate; and (c) which is a significant cause inducing the claimant to enter into the contract: see Universal Tankships Inc of Monrovia v. International Transport Workers' Federation [1983] 1 AC 366 at 400B-E and Dimskal Shipping Co SA v. International Transport Workers' Federation [1992] 2 AC 152 at 165 G. In determining whether there has been illegitimate pressure, the Court takes into account a range of factors. These include whether there has been an actual or threatened breach of contract; whether the person allegedly exerting the pressure has acted in good or bad faith; whether the victim had any realistic practical alternative but to submit to the pressure; whether the victim protested at the time; and whether he affirmed and sought to rely on the contract. These are all relevant factors. Illegitimate pressure must be distinguished from the rough and tumble of the pressures of normal commercial bargaining."
and "The ingredients of actionable duress are that there must be pressure, (a) whose practical effect is that there is compulsion on, or a lack of practical choice for, the victim, (b) which is illegitimate, and (c) which is a significant cause inducing the claimant to enter into the contract: see Universal Tanking of Monrovia v. ITWF [1983] AC 336, 400 B–E, and The Evia Luck [1992] 2AC 152, 165 G. In determining whether there has been illegitimate pressure, the court takes into account a range of factors. These include whether there has been an actual or threatened breach of contract; whether the person allegedly exerting the pressure has acted in good or bad faith; whether the victim had any realistic practical alternative but to submit to the pressure; whether the victim protested at the time; and whether he confirmed and sought to rely on the contract. These are all relevant factors. Illegitimate pressure must be distinguished from the rough and tumble of the pressures of normal commercial bargaining."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Michael Gerson (Leasing) Limited v Michael Wilkinson and State Securities Limited Times, 12 September 2000; Gazette, 14 September 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 250; [2000] EWCA Civ 251; [2001] QB 514 CA
31 Jul 2000
CA

Contract, Financial Services, Agency
Where goods were subject to a financing arrangement involving a sale and leaseback with a finance company, the goods were to be treated as constructively delivered to the finance company on the sale. Delivery required a voluntary act by the person in actual possession, but that could be satisfied by an acknowledgement of the rights of the purchaser. Such assumptions are in accordance with modern sensible commercial practice. The mere request for an invoice was not of itself sufficient to establish that a contract was in place where delivery might be expected to take place only on payment.
Sale of Goods Act 1979 24 25
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Southampton Cargo Handling Plc v Lotus Cars Limited and others Associated British Ports (the "Rigoletto") [2000] EWCA Civ 252; [2000] 2 Lloyd's Rep 532
31 Jul 2000
CA
Rix LJ
Contract

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 HM Attorney General v Blake (Jonathan Cape Ltd third Party intervening); HL 3-Aug-2000 - Gazette, 17 August 2000; Times, 03 August 2000; [2000] UKHL 45; [2000] 4 All ER 385; [2000] 3 WLR 625; [2001] 1 AC 268
 
Stent Foundations Ltd v M J Gleeson Group Plc [2000] EWHC Technology 66
9 Aug 2000
TCC

Consumer, Contract, Construction
The defendant company sought to rely upon an exemption clause. Held: Applying standard rules for contract interpretation, the exemption clause was to be construed against the one proposing it. At best the clause was ambiguous, and the defendants claim for exemption failed. The clause did not satisfy the first two tests set down in the Canada Steamship case, and the controversial third test could be ignored.
Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Montagu Evans v Young Times, 19 September 2000
19 Sep 2000
OHCS

Contract, Jurisdiction
In order to use the convention to give a country jurisdiction in a claim involving the payment of money only, it was not enough that the vendor had the option of paying in the UK, or that other parts of the contract might have been performed in the UK. They had to establish that Scotland was the sole place provided by the contract for performance of the particular obligation in issue.
Brussels Convention on Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968

 
Yambou Development Company Limited v Kauser (as executive of the will of Helen Hadley, deceased) (Appeal No 3 of 1999) [2000] UKPC 40
25 Oct 2000
PC

Land, Contract, Commonwealth
PC (St. Vincent and the Grenadines) specific performance of a contract for the sale of land
[ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ]
 
National Express Group Ltd v Campbell and Others [2000] ScotCS 276
7 Nov 2000
SCS

Scotland, Contract

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Griffin v Citibank Investments Ltd Times, 14 November 2000; Gazette, 23 November 2000
14 Nov 2000
ChD

Taxes Management, Contract
Where there existed properly constituted documents recording a contract, the court could not go behind them to discover the real transaction. The rules in Ramsay is not a special set of principles restricted to issues in determining the legal effect for taxation of a series of transactions, but rather part of general rules. In this case no steps had been introduced into the transaction whose only purpose was to reduce tax liability, and they could not be seen as one composite whole.
1 Cites


 
City Alliance Ltd v Oxford Forecasting Services Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 510; [2001] 1 All ER Comm 233
16 Nov 2000
CA
Sir Andrew Morritt VC, Chadwick, Latham LJJ
Contract
The parties disputed the construction of a clause in the contract between them. Held: Chadwick LJ said: "It is not for party who relies upon the words actually used to establish that those words effect a sensible commercial purpose. It should be assumed, as a starting point, that the parties understood the purpose which was effected by the words they used; and that they used those words because, to them, that was a sensible commercial purpose. Before the Court can introduce words which the parties have not used, it is necessary to be satisfied (i) that the words actually used produce a result which is so commercially nonsensical that the parties could not have intended it, and (ii) that they did intend some other commercial purpose which can be identified with confidence. If, and only if, those two conditions are satisfied, is it open to the court to introduce words which the parties have not used in order to construe the agreement. It is then permissible to do so because, if those conditions are satisfied, the additional words give to the agreement or clause the meaning which the parties must have intended. "
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Time Group Ltd v Panic Link Plc and Another [2000] EWCA Civ 417
17 Nov 2000
CA

Agency, Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
369413 Alberta Ltd v Pocklington (2001) 194 DLR (4th) 109
21 Nov 2000


Commonwealth, Contract, Torts - Other
(Court of Appeal of Alberta) The court set out a number of propositions as to the intention required for inducing a breach of contract. These included inferred intention and recklessness. The Court of Appeal held as follows: "In order to find liability [for inference with contractual relations], a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant had an "intent" to induce the breach of contract. The intent component of the tort is the most difficult to understand. Malicious motive, unlawful conduct, hatred or intention to harm are not required elements of intent: Allen v Flood, [1898] AC 1 9H.L.(E,));Parks West Mall Ltd v Jennett (1996), 36 Alta.L.R. (3d) 44 (C.A.) at 49; and Atcheson v College of Physicians and Surgeons (Alberta), [1994] 6 W.W.R. 239 (Alta.Q.B) at 246. However, what is required is less clear. The requisite intent has been described with "loose, vague and conflicting statements" that sometime appear to be irreconcilable: Ed Miller Sales, supra, at 230.

Originally, the tort required the breach to be the result of wilful, deliberate and direct conduct which the defendant knew or hoped would result in a violation of the plaintiff's contractual rights. See for example, Lumley v Gye (1853), 118 E.R. 749, 2 El. & B1.216 (Q.B); and Quinn v Leathem, [1901] A.C.495 (H.L.(I.)).

However, courts soon recognized that intent can also be inferred when the consequences of the conduct were a necessary or reasonable foreseeable result, because "people are presumed to intend the reasonable consequences of their acts": South Wales Miners' Federation v Glamorgan Coal Company, [1905]A.C.239 (H.L.(E.)) at 244. In Posluns v Toronto Stock Exchange and Gardiner (1965), 46 D.L.R. (2d) 210 (Ont. H.C) at 267; affirmed (1966), 53 D.L.R (2d) 193 (C.A.); affirmed [1968] S.C.R. 330, 67 D.L.R. (2d) 165, the court held that liability would attach if the defendant's conduct resulted in the breach of a contract "of which it was or ought to have been aware". The intention to bring about a breach of contract need not be the primary object; it is sufficient if the interference is necessarily incidental to attaining the defendant's primary objective: Fraser v Board of Trustees of Central United Church (1983), 38 O.R. (2d) 97 (H.C.J.) at 103' and Bank of Nova Scotia v Gaudreau (1985), 48 O.R. (2d) 478 (H.C.J.). [41] Intention can also be established when the defendant was reckless or wilfully blind to a breach. The defendant need not have actually known the precise terms of the contract or that his object only could be accomplished through breach of the contract. "If – turning a blind eye – he went about it regardless of whether it would involve a breach, he will be treated just as if he had knowingly procured it": J.G. Fleming, The Law of Torts, 8th Ed. (Sydney: law Book Co., 1992) at 694.

Turning a blind eye may include situations in which the defendant failed to seek advice or employ the means available to obtain the necessary knowledge. For example, in Royal Bank of Canada v Wilton (1995), 165 A.R. 261, D.L.R. (4th) 266 (C.A.), the defendant was uncertain about the enforceability of a contract, had the "means of knowledge" to determine if a legitimate contract existed, but made no efforts to seek advice. This court found the defendant liable because he deliberately chose not to acquire the information, but proceeded on the basis that the contract was unenforceable. Similarly, when there are competing legal interpretations and the defendant adopts an interpretation which will interfere with the plaintiff's rights, the defendant "must at least show that he was advised and honestly believed that he was legally entitled to take that course": Swiss Bank v Lloyds Bank, [1979] Ch.548 at 580 (CH.D.); reversed on other grounds [1982] A.C. 584 (C.A.); affirmed [1982] A.C. 604 (H.L.(E)).
If the defendant acted under a bona fide belief that contractual rights would not be infringed, liability will not be found even though the belief turned out to be mistaken. But for a mistaken belief to be bona fide, rather than the result of recklessness or wilful blindness, some basis for the belief must exist, and some reasonable effort must have been made by the defendant to learn the truth. In British Industrial Plastics Ltd. v Ferguson, [1940] 1 All E.R. 479 (H.L.(E.)), the defendants who had made the effort to seek advice were not found liable even though their belief was described as "illogical". In Z-Mark International Inc. v Leng Novak Inc. (1996), 12 O.T.C. 33 (Gen. Div.), appeal dismissed (1999), 122 O.A.C. 341, a defendant made inquiries and obtained assurances and a warranty. The court found that the defendant had no reason to doubt the assurance or the warranty and therefore the defendant was not knowingly or recklessly indifferent to a breach of contract.

In some cases a distinction is drawn between direct interference, for which the breach must be foreseeable or reasonable consequence of the conduct, and indirect interference, for which the breach must be necessary or substantially certain consequence. See, for example, L.N. Klar, Tort Law, 2nd ed. (Scarborough: Carswell, 1996) at 498 and 507; Fleming, supra, at 694; D.C. Thomson & Co. Ltd. V Deakin ,[1952] Ch. 646 (C.A.); Bank of Nova Scotia, supra; Garry v Sherritt Gordon Mines Ltd., [1988] 1 W.W.R. 289, 45 D.L.R. (4d) 22 (Sask. C.A.); and Atcheson, supra.

[45] As this case involves direct interference, this distinction does not arise. Pocklington, as the director of Gainers, executed the documents to complete the transfer of the 350151 shares to his own company. The transfer caused Gainers to breach s. 12.03(1) of the Master Agreement, which prohibited dispositions of assets without Alberta's consent. Therefore, if the breach was a reasonable or foreseeable consequence of that transfer, or alternatively, if Pocklington completed the transfer recklessly, was wilfully blind to its consequences, or was indifferent as to whether or not it caused a breach, the necessary intent element for the tort will be met."
1 Citers

[ Canlii ]
 
Standard Life Assurance Company (Incorporated Under Laws of Scotland By Act of Parliament) v Egan Lawson Limited [2000] EWCA Civ 293; [2001] 1 EGLR 27
21 Nov 2000
CA
Simon Brown LJ, Mummery LJ, Latham LJ
Agency, Contract
The defendant appealed against judgment in favour of his (buyer's) estate agent for his commission in finding the property for it. A previous offer was rejected by the seller, but a subsequent agent of the buyer obtained the acceptance of a further offer. Was the intriduction by the first agent the effective cause of the sale? Held: None of the cases indicate that it is legally possible, in the absence of an express or implied contract to that effect, for the court to apportion the agreed commission between the two agents on an equitable basis that each introduction was a contributory cause of the purchase by the person introduced. Neither side proposed that solution as a legally permissible (or even desirable) result in this case. It is a case of winners and losers, all or nothing. In this case however, the claimants had not been the effective introducers. It was the action of the second agent which was the effective cause of the purchase. The actual purchase was not the same transaction proposed by the first agents.
Mummery LJ observed that: "In the case of two estate agents appointed by the vendor . . The first in time factor (and the interest that the initial introduction generates) is relevant, it is neither determinative nor paramount in resolving the rival claims to commission. It is necessary to consider the causal link between the instructions and the ultimate transaction."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
B S and N Limited (BVI) v Micado Shipping Limited (Malta) ('The Seaflower') [2000] EWCA Civ 296
22 Nov 2000
CA

Transport, Damages, Contract

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Martel Building Ltd v Canada; 30-Nov-2000 - 2000 SCC 60; [2000] 2 SCR 860
 
Burnside Kemp Fraser v Stirton and Melvin [2000] ScotCS 304
5 Dec 2000
SCS
Lord Wheatley
Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
Galaxy Energy International Ltd v Bayoil Sa [2000] EWCA Civ 3031
6 Dec 2000
CA

Contract

[ Bailii ]

 
 Macquarie Generation v Peabody Resources Ltd; 14-Dec-2000 - [2000] NSWCA 361; [2001] Aust Contract Reports 90-121
 
Barbara Fontana (Administratrix of the Estate of Alan Neil Gosley Deceased) v Skandia Life Assurance Ltd and Molesworths (a Firm) [2000] EWCA Civ 325
14 Dec 2000
CA

Contract
The deceased took out pension and life policies. After failure to make payments they were suspended. The savings element was re-instated, but the deceased did not return the statement as to his health. At first instance the court held the insurance to have been revived. Held: The correspondence could not be read as offering to re-instate the life insurance without the form. The correspondence was on the basis that the claimant and her solicitors tacitly were not challenging the refusal to pay the life claim.
1 Cites

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