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: 2002 To: 2002

This page lists 144 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.

 
The Demetra K [2002] 2 Lloyd's Rep 581
2002
CA
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers MR
Contract, Insurance
The court set out the elements to be satisfied before ordering a rectification of a commercial contract, in particular, the need for an antecedent agreement with outward expression of a common intent, and convincing evidence sufficient to discharge the burden of proving a common mistake in translating the previous agreement into contractual form. Held: Those negotiating the contract each assumed that their agreement on a certain matter would have a certain effect, but they had never discussed and agreed upon that effect. There was not enough for rectification: "Mr Lee and Mr Mitchell plainly agreed that the Oct. 3 addendum should be deleted from the slip policy. We do not believe that either of them gave precise consideration to the effect of this deletion. It may be that Mr. Mitchell assumed that it would relieve the insurers from all risk arising from vandalism, sabotage and malicious mischief. It may be that Mr. Lee had a similar belief. If they both shared that belief this would not establish a claim for rectification of the policy." and "Where a policy provides cover against one of two or more concurrent causes of a casualty, a claim will lie under the policy provided that there is no relevant exclusion. Where, however, a policy contains an express exclusion of cover in respect of loss resulting from a specified cause, underwriters will be under no liability in respect of a loss resulting from that cause, notwithstanding the fact that there may have been a concurrent cause of the loss which falls within the cover."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Classic International Pty Ltd v Lagos [2002] NSWSC 115
2002

Palmer J
Commonwealth, Equity, Contract
(New South Wales Supreme Court) "I am satisfied that both parties believed that the agreement for lease would validly take effect according to its terms and that had they known of the substantial variation which the Retail Leases Act 1994 would impose upon the agreement, they would not have entered into it" and "42. I do not need to consider the vexed question of whether the mistake in the present case is one of fact or one of law. As to whether, in the law of Australia, the doctrine of common "mistake applies to" a mistake of law, I need do no more that set out the following passage from Cheshire and Fifoot’s Law of Contract 8th Aust Ed., para 12.8: "Operative mistake traditionally has been confined to mistakes of fact and not of law. This distinction has always been blurred and has been notoriously difficult to apply. It appears that equity did not draw a clear line between mistakes of fact and law. If there was such a rule, it was often honoured in the breach. In Western Australia the law/fact distinction has been abolished by legislation (with certain safeguards). The whole question has now almost certainly been laid to rest by the decision of the High Court in David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank (1992) 175 CLR 353. In that case the distinction between mistake of law and mistake of fact was rejected in the light of a very considerable body of judicial and academic criticism of the distinction. . . . the rule precluding recovery of moneys paid under a mistake of law should be held not to form part of the law in Australia."
1 Citers


 
Britvic Soft Drinks Ltd v Messer UK Ltd [2002] 1 Lloyds Rep 20
2002
ChD
Tomlinson J
Contract, Consumer
Britvic purchased bulk CO2 for the carbonation of various soft and alcoholic drinks from a supplier. The CO2 was manufactured by others. As a result of a breakdown of the manufacturing process, the CO2 contained a concentration of benzene which, although benzene is carcinogenic, was so small that it represented no risk to health. The questions were whether the CO2 was of satisfactory quality or reasonably fit for its purpose within section 14(2) or (3) of the 1979 Act. Held: It was neither. ". . . one particular description of the goods to which the reasonable person must have regard is that to be found in BS4105, viz that CO2 of type 2 is suitable for industrial food applications." and "I therefore find it impossible to conclude that a reasonable person would regard the CO2 supplied as meeting a satisfactory standard. Consumers would not wish to drink products which had inadvertently been contaminated with a measurable quantity of a known carcinogen, notwithstanding the quantity was not harmful to their health. If the manufacturers had not taken steps to satisfy the public that all reasonable measures were being taken to recall the batches of production affected all of their production would very quickly have become unsaleable. The affected products themselves were in a real sense unsaleable in the sense that no consumer would knowingly buy them and the manufacturers could not as responsible manufacturers be seen to attempt to sell them. … All those affected products which could by reasonably proportionate measures be withdrawn from the distribution chain were in a real sense unsaleable. I do not consider that the CO2 can be regarded as of satisfactory quality if it had this effect on the end product into which it was introduced. … In that situation, the public perception will be that the carcinogen simply ought not to be present at all and the manufacturers ought not to attempt to sell products which have been in that way inadvertently contaminated. … "
Sale of Goods Act 1979 14 - Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 3
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Taylor v Hamer [2002] EWCA Civ 1130; [2003] 1 EGLR 103
2002
CA
Arden, Sedley LJJ
Contract, Land
The parties were buyers and sellers of land. The seller's husband removed a large area of flagstones after the buyer's first inspection but before exchange. He seeded over the land so that, on a second inspection by the buyer's solicitor, the removal was not obvious. The solicitor, did not appreciate that the flagstones had been removed, but, seeing a pile of flagstones asked about them. He was told (deceitfully) that these had not been taken from the property, and that they were not included in the sale, but were to be removed by the seller, as in fact happened. The contract contained a deemed inspection clause and Standard Condition 3.2.1. An incomplete schedule of fixtures and fittings to be included or excluded did not mention the flagstones. Standard Condition 5.1.1 referred to the "physical state . . at the date of the contract"). An entire agreement clause precluded reliance on statements or representations other than those contained in written replies to preliminary inquiries. The parties disputed the effect of the clause in relation to replies to preliminary inquiries. Held: (By majority) The buyer had a contractual claim. The reference to the property being sold was to be interpreted to refer to the property with the fixtures which the buyer saw on his inspection, or reasonably believed to be included in his sale when he made his initial offer.
Sedley LJ said: "In the manner seminally described by Lord Hoffmann in Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society . . the meaning to be ascribed to 'the Property' is the meaning it would be given by a reasonable person who knows what the parties knew at the time they contracted . . It includes the facts that the claimant had been shown premises which included the flagged dog garden and that he had not been told before contract that this was no longer part of the realty. In my judgment such facts are not within the exclusion zone of prior negotiation and subjective intent described in Lord Hoffmann's third principle . . They are the normal means by which the subject matter of any offer and acceptance is identified.
This would probably be enough . . to make the flagstones part of 'the Property' for which the parties went on to exchange contracts. But here, additionally, the vendor deliberately induced the buyer, through his solicitor, to believe that there had been no such alteration. To Arden LJ's question: why tell this lie? Ms Hargreaves [Counsel for the Seller] had no answer.
Against this background of fact any reasonable person, in my judgment, would have understood the property which was being bid for and contracted for to include the flagstones in the dog garden. The case falls outside the caveat emptor paradigm … because the vendor, by his conduct in inviting an offer for the property as shown to the purchaser and without any explicit subtraction from it, represented that it was to include the flagged garden.
In everyday house purchases people are entitled to be confident that, unless some different agreement is reached and recorded, the property which is to pass includes its fixtures. If before the sale takes place the seller has given the buyer no reason to think that the fixtures (at least those the buyer knows of) are not part of the premises for which an offer is being invited, simple morality says that he cannot remove them without telling the buyer that they are no longer for sale. To fail to do so is to invite a bid for something which is no longer what the bidder still reasonably believes it to be; not to put too fine a point on it, it is cheating. Surreptitiously removing fixtures does not mean that the seller is stealing them, for they are his. It means that if the sale goes through he will be failing to convey what the eventual buyer has become entitled to have conveyed."
1 Citers


 
Pankhania v The London Borough of Hackney [2002] EWHC 2441 (Ch)
2002
ChD
Rex Tedd QC
Equity, Contract
A brochure listing properties to be sold at auction decribed the property as being subject to a terminable licence. In fact it was a secure tenancy. The question arose as to whether a misrepresentation of law could found a cause of action. Held: "I have concluded that the "misrepresentation of law" rule has not survived the decision in Klienwort Benson Ltd. Its historical origin is as an off-shoot of the "mistake of law" rule, created by analogy with it, and the two are logically inter-dependent. Both are grounded in the maxim "ignorantia juris non excusat", a tag whose dubious utility would have been enhanced, had it gone on to explain who was not excused and from what. As it stands, it means no more than that ignorance of the general law does not excuse anyone from compliance with it, a proposition with which criminal lawyers are familiar. In translation, it has become distorted and amplified meaning, in such expressions as "everyone" is taken to know the Law", from which follow two further propositions (underpinning the "mistake of law" and "misrepresentation of law" rules respectively) (i) " as you are taken to know the law, it is your fault if you are mistaken as to it, even if I have misrepresented it to you, and because of that you should have no relief". Those two propositions bear little relation to, and do not follow logically from, the maxim "ignorantia juris non excusat", but save for its Latin roots, no basis for the "misrepresentation of law" rule is to be found, as Lane L.J. remarked in Andre. The distinction between fact and law in the context of relief from misrepresentation has no more underlying principle to it than it does in the context of relief from mistake. Indeed, when the principles of mistake and misrepresentation are set side by side, there is a stronger case for granting relief against a party who has induced a mistaken belief as to law in another, than against one who has merely made the same mistake himself. The rules of the common law should, so far as possible, be congruent with one another, and based on coherent principle. The survival of the "misrepresentation of law" rule following the demise of the "mistake of law" rule would be more than a quixotic anachronism. Its demise rids this area of the law of a series of distinctions, such as the "private rights" exception, whose principal function has been to distinguish the "mistake of law" rule, and confine it to a very narrow compass, albeit not to extinguish it completely."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Johnson v EBS Pensioner Trustees Limited [2002] LlR PN 309
2002
CA
Mummery and Dyson LJJ and Douglas Brown J
Contract
The court considered a request for rescission. A guarantee had been given by one of the defendants as security for a loan made by solicitors to his company. He complained that the solicitor acting for him had a conflict of interest and had been in breach of his fiduciary duty by failing to disclose that his firm received service charges on the loan. Held: Rescission had been properly refused. Rescission was not available as of right, but was discretionary. Dyson LJ: "When exercising its equitable jurisdiction the court considers what fairness requires not only when addressing the question of the precise form of relief, but also when considering whether the remedy should be granted at all." However, the court ordered the solicitor to account for the service charge to his client.
1 Citers


 
Swainland Builders Ltd v Freehold Properties Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 560; [2002] 2 EGLR 71; [2002] 23 EG 123; [2002] 17 EG 154
2002
CA
Lord Justice Peter Gibson
Equity, Contract, Registered Land
Swainland Builders Ltd owned the freehold of a block of flats. It had granted 99-year leases at ground rents of all the flats except numbers 11 and 18. It had intended to sell the block subject to the retention of flats 11 and 18 which it initially proposed to let on shorthold tenancies but with a view to granting long leases at premiums in the future.
In October 1998 Freehold Properties Ltd agreed to buy the block for £60,000. It correctly understood the aggregate ground rents of £4,875 on the assumption that all 39 flats were let on the same long leasehold terms. By September 1999 the vendor's solicitor had confirmed by letter to the purchaser's solicitor that the vendor was not intending to sell flats 11 and 18 and in the interim the vendor was to be treated as any other tenant of the block.
Long leases of the two flats were never granted and the transfer of the freehold by the vendor failed to reserve any rights to the two flats for the benefit of the vendor. On becoming aware of that omission the vendor issued proceedings claiming that there had been a mistake which was common to the parties and contrary to their common intention.
At trial Neuberger J concluded that the intention of the parties seemed quite clear from the evidence. He ordered rectification of the transfer so as to provide for the grant to the vendor of leases in respect of the two flats. Held: The court summarised the requirements for rectification for mutual mistake, namely: "The party seeking rectification must show that: (1) the parties had a common continuing intention, whether or not amounting to an agreement, in respect of a particular matter in the instrument to be rectified; (2) there was an outward expression of accord; (3) the intention continued at the time of the execution of the instrument sought to be rectified; (4) by mistake, the instrument did not reflect that common intention. The following points derive from the authorities: (1) the standard of proof required if the court is to order rectification is the ordinary standard of the balance of probabilities . . (2) While it must be shown what was the common intention, the exact form of words in which the common intention is to be expressed is immaterial if, in substance and in detail, the common intention can be ascertained . . (3) The fact that a party intends a particular form of words in the mistaken belief that it is achieving its intention does not prevent the court from giving effect to the true common intention . . "
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Crantrave Ltd (In Liquidation) v Lloyd's Bank Plc; CA 2002 - [2002] All ER (Comm) 89
 
Virani Ltd v Manuel Revert Y Cia Sa [2002] EWCA Civ 107
15 Jan 2002
CA

Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
Aker Oil and Gas Technology UK Plc v Sovereign Corporate Limited [2002] EWHC 104 (Technology)
15 Jan 2002
TCC
His Honour Judge Richard Havery Q.C.
Contract, Estoppel
The claimants sought payment of a bonus for having completed the construction of a vessel on time. They claimed that certificates estopped the defendants from admitting the bonus to be due. The defendants said the certificates had been issued in reliance upon false representations made by the claimants. Held: The defendant was estopped from denying the validity of the certificates.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Jeancharm Ltd (T/A Beaver International) v Barnet Football Club Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 58
16 Jan 2002
CA
Jacob J, Keene LJ
Contract
The claimant contracted to supply football shirts to the defendant, but claimed that clauses in the contract with regards to late delivery and payment operated as penalties and so were void at common law. Held: The sums set out were immodest and went far beyond any attempt to pre-estimate losses. They were invalid as a penalty. The court rejected a move to a more discretionary approach to deciding whether a clause was a penalty.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Wilson v Robertsons (London) Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 622
16 Jan 2002
CA

Contract, Consumer
Application for permission to appeal in claim against pawnbrokers for return of pledged jewelry.
Consumer Credit Act 1974
[ Bailii ]
 
B J Aviation Ltd v Pool Aviation Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 163
18 Jan 2002
CA
Schiemann, Chadwick LJJ, Sir Murray Stuart-Smith
Contract
The parties disputed the effect of a clause in an option agreement, and as to whether it contained an agreement to negotiate and was therefore not binding. Held: Chadwick LJ said: "First, each case must be decided on its own facts and on the construction of the words used in the particular agreement. Decisions on other words, in other agreements, construed against the background of other facts, are not determinative and may not be of any real assistance.
Second, if on the true construction of the words which they have used in the circumstances in which they have used them, the parties must be taken to have intended to leave some essential matter, such as price or rent, to be agreed between them in the future - on the basis that either will remain free to agree or disagree about that matter - there is no bargain which the courts can enforce.
Third, in such a case, there is no obligation on the parties to negotiate in good faith about the matter which remains to be agreed between them - see Walford v. Miles [1992] AC 128, at page 138G.
Fourth, where the court is satisfied that the parties intended that their bargain should be enforceable, it will strive to give effect to that intention by construing the words which they have used in a way which does not leave the matter to be agreed in the future incapable of being determined in the absence of future agreement. In order to achieve that result the court may feel able to imply a term in the original bargain that the price or rent, or other matter to be agreed, shall be a "fair" price, or a "market" price, or a "reasonable" price; or by quantifying whatever matter it is that has to be agreed by some equivalent epithet. In a contract for sale of goods such a term may be implied by section 8 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 . But the court cannot imply a term which is inconsistent with what the parties have actually agreed. So if, on the true construction of the words which they have used, the court is driven to the conclusion that they must be taken to have intended that the matter should be left to their future agreement on the basis that either is to remain free to agree or disagree about that matter as his own perceived interest dictates there is no place for an implied term that, in the absence of agreement, the matter shall be determined by some objective criteria of fairness or reasonableness.
Fifth, if the court concludes that the true intention of the parties was that the matter to be agreed in the future is capable of being determined, in the absence of future agreement, by some objective criteria of fairness or reasonableness, then the bargain does not fail because the parties have provided no machinery for such determination, or because the machinery which they have provided breaks down. In those circumstances the court will provide its own machinery for determining what needs to be determined—where appropriate by ordering an inquiry (see Sudbrook Trading Estate Ltd v. Eggleton [1983] A.C. 444)."
Sale of Goods Act 1979 8
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Freund v Charles Scott Developments (South Devon) Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 106
21 Jan 2002
CA

Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
Barry Urquart Associates (a firm) v East Surrey Health Authority Gazette, 01 February 2002
22 Jan 2002
CA
Lord Justice Latham, Mr Justice Wilson
Construction, Contract
A health authority appointed the claimant to begin work designing a new hospital. The hospital was completed by the defendant successor authority who had appointed a different firm of architects to complete the work. The claimant appealed a dismissal of its claim for the costs of the initial work undertaken. Held: The contact failed to include any clause entitling payment for the initial works. Earlier papers suggesting this might happen had not been incorporated into the contract.

 
Universal Leasing and Finance Limited v Montego Vacations Limited (Appeal No 33 of 2000) [2002] UKPC 2
24 Jan 2002
PC
Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Browne-Wilkinson Lord Nolan Lord Scott of Foscote Sir Christopher Slade
Commonwealth, Land, Contract
PC (Jamaica) The case concerned a contract for the sale of land. No completion date had been specified, nor that vacant possession should be given. Held: Evidence supported the suggestion that vacant possession had been agreed between the parties. The case was remitted for consideration of the form in which specific performance was to be ordered.
[ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Clarke and Another v Slay and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 113
25 Jan 2002
CA

Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
Lam v National Federation of Small Businesses [2002] EWCA Civ 212
28 Jan 2002
CA

Contract
The plaintiff appealed failure of his action against the defendant arguing that they had contracted to provide him with legal representation.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Hamburg v Goldstein [2002] EWCA Civ 122
28 Jan 2002
CA

Contract
Application for permission to appeal.
[ Bailii ]
 
Bim Kemi Ab v Blackburn Chemicals Ltd [2002] EWHC 25 (Commercial)
30 Jan 2002
ComC
Langley J
Contract

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Otis Vehicle Rentals Ltd v Cicely Commercials Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 154
30 Jan 2002
CA

Contract
Leave to appeal
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Huttons (A Firm) v Harris and others [2002] EWCA Civ 282
31 Jan 2002
CA

Contract, Legal Professions
Solicitors sued for payment of their costs.
[ Bailii ]
 
Husain and Zafar v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA [2002] EWCA Civ 82; [2002] 3 All ER 750; [2002] ICR 1258; [2002] IRLR 460; [2002] Emp LR 406; A3/2001/9016/CHANF
31 Jan 2002
CA
Lord Justice Pill, Lord Justice Robert Walker, And, Lord Justice Jonathan Parker
Damages, Employment, Contract, Torts - Other
The appellants challenged the refusal of their claims for stigma damages following the collapse of their former employer. Held: If a relevant breach of contract is established, and causation, remoteness and mitigation are satisfied, recovery of financial loss in respect of damage to reputation in employment cases is not excluded. Nevertheless, it will be difficult to prove. The claim was the same whether in tort or in contract. The judge had excluded certain evidence as to the damages suffered. The onus of proving causation lies on the plaintiff. The particular claimants in this case had failed to establish their case. It was not necessary to call similar the evidence sought to be admitted. To require it would exclude many proper claims.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Walkinshaw and others v Diniz [2002] EWCA Civ 180
1 Feb 2002
CA

Contract
The parties disputed the termination of the contract for the defendant to drive the Formula 1 racing car managed by the claimants.
[ Bailii ]
 
Eurovideo Buildprogramm Gmbh v Pulse Entertainment Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 101
1 Feb 2002
CA

Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
Sharma v Sunrise Radio Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 213
4 Feb 2002
CA

Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
Time Group Limited v Computer 2000 Distribution Limited and IBM United Kingdom Limited [2002] EWHC 126 (Technology)
4 Feb 2002
TCC
His Honour Judge Bowsher QC
Contract, Litigation Practice
Computers had been supplied by the second defendant to the claimant and first defendant at different times for exclusive distribution in the UK. Defects were alleged. The case concerned applications made for dismissal of a case as an abuse of process, and for discovery. A previous action had been settled against the second defendant. Allegations were made of computers being sold when they were known to be defective. Time sought to encourage the first defendant to join in IBM as Part 20 defendant, and agreed to limit its claim to assist. Held: Pursuing one defendant and limiting the claim to what that defendant might recover from a third party, was not necessarily wrong. Abuse was possible when an issue was pursued which could have been dealt with in earlier proceedings. Time had not joined the first defendant in the first action. That rule is now capable of applying, even where the parties were different. When abuse is revealed, the court has a duty, not a discretion, to dismiss the action. Held: Here the claimant was acting in a devious way, and the claim was an abuse and was to be struck out.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Alliotts (A Firm) v Reynard [2002] EWCA Civ 241
5 Feb 2002
CA

Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
Thurstan Hoskin and Partners v Jewill Hill and Bennett (A Firm) and others [2002] EWCA Civ 249
5 Feb 2002
CA

Employment, Contract

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Aero Properties Ltd and Another v Citycrest Properties Ltd and Another; ChD 6-Feb-2002 - Gazette, 21 February 2002; [2000] 2 PandCR 21
 
East West Corporation v DKBS 1912 and Another [2002] EWHC 83 (Commercial)
7 Feb 2002
ComC

Transport, Contract, Damages

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Worwood and Another v Leisure Merchandising Services Ltd and others [2002] EWCA Civ 244
8 Feb 2002
CA

Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
Trafigura Beheer Bv v BCL Trading Ges [2002] EWCA Civ 251
11 Feb 2002
CA

Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
Samuels Corporate v Somers [2002] EWCA Civ 201
11 Feb 2002
CA

Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
Smith v Transport and General Workers Union [2002] EWCA Civ 257
18 Feb 2002
CA

Negligence, Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
Stinnes Logistics Ag v Palgrave Brown (UK) Limited [2002] EWCA Civ 128
19 Feb 2002
CA
Lord Justice Waller, Lord Justice Rix, And, Mr Justice Wilson
Contract
The respondents had been awarded judgment for payment of their fees in securing a purchaser of the appellants business. Two bidders were in place. One sought exclusivity before incurring the costs of acquisition. A contract race was suggested provided the vendor underwrote the first part of the bidder's due diligence costs. An offer was made, but the parties differed according as to whether it was payable if the bid failed. Held: The relevant letter was to be construed as an invitation and an offer to pay the costs, and was not conditional upon contracts being ready to be signed by a certain date. Appeal dismissed.
[ Bailii ]
 
Braymist Limited and Others v Wise Finance Company Limited Gazette, 28 March 2002; Times, 05 April 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 127; [2002] Ch 273; [2002] 1 BCLC 415; [2002] 2 All ER 333; [2002] 3 WLR 322
20 Feb 2002
CA
Lord Justice Judge, Lord Justice Latham, Lady Justice Arden
Company, Land, Legal Professions, European, Contract
The claimant company set out to sell land whilst it was still only in the process of incorporation. Its solicitors had signed as agents, and now sought an order for the purchaser to complete the contract. The respondent had not known of the non-incorporation of the company. The claimant later rescinded the contract, and forfeited the deposit. At first instance Etherton J had held that the solicitors had been capable of rescinding and had rescinded the agreement, that the contractual deposit was forfeit to the solicitors and that Wise was liable to pay the solicitors damages for breach of contract. Held: The appeal failed. The section in the 1985 Act implemented a clause in the 1972 Act and the 1968 directive. Was the agent both liable under the contract and able to enforce it, and was the agreement unenforceable for failure to comply with the 1989 requirement for an appropriate memorandum? The European directive was to be interpreted directly. It was a compromise of different laws through member states, but was silent as to the ability of an agent to enforce such a contract. Section 36C should not be read down to limit its meaning. In this case, the solicitor agent could enforce the contract. As a party to the contract, he could also sign, and the 1989 Act should not be read too strictly.
Latham LJ said:
"It is common ground that section 36C of the Companies Act 1985, and its predecessor, was enacted in order to give effect to article 7 of the First Council Directive (68/151/EEC) already referred to by Arden L.J. in her judgment, and in particular to reverse the decision of this court in Newborne v. Sensolid (Great Britain) Ltd. [1954] 1 QB 45. It also put to rest any doubts that there might have been as to the liability of a person who purports to act as an agent in such a situation . ."
Judge LJ explained to effect of Section 36C:
" . . The purported contract, otherwise a nullity, "has effect", not as one made with the unformed company but as one made with the purported agent, who is "personally liable" to [the other party] on the contract."
Judge LJ, ultimately favoured "the broad view" and said:
"My difficulty is created by the concluding words of the subsection, "and he is personally liable on the contract accordingly". If the contract "has effect" as one made with the purported agent of the company, B [the "agent"] would become personally liable on the contract without the concluding words of the subsection. The contract "has effect". The language of section 36C(1) reflects the broad thrust of the First Council Directive (68/151/EEC), first implemented domestically in its predecessor, section 9(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 . The recital twice refers to "protecting" third parties . .
If the broad view is correct, the statute has gone much further than the creation of new protection for A [the other contracting party]. Plainly, as a matter of statutory construction, section 36C(1) may have extended beyond simple compliance with the Directive. Nevertheless the concluding words add something: if surplusage, they would not be there. Their presence provides a clear indication that the highlight of section 36C(1) is protection for A."
Judge LJ continued:
"In principle, the identity of the other party to a contract often matters, sometimes very much indeed. A might happily contract with C, but not with either B, or even D, even if identical terms were available. He may have a complete antipathy to being beholden to or under any legal obligation personally to B, or indeed anyone other than C. There are, of course, well understood exceptions to the principle that an individual is free to decide whether and with whom to enter or not to enter, a contract (for example, the legislation in relation to discrimination on the grounds of sex or race). But I may illustrate the difficulties by considering a contract of employment, underlining that so far as unformed companies are concerned, there are no limits to the contracts to which section 36C(1) applies: it applies to them all. A may welcome the opportunity of employment, as, say, an office manager for a particular company, with which he is contracting. If the company is unformed, is he bound to accept similar employment on identical contractual terms, with B? Or become liable to B for breach of contract if he refuses or fails to do so? Surely not. The answer however is not that the contract is automatically deprived of the "effect" which section 36C(1) has created, but rather, that just as section 36C(1) is not apt to exclude considerations such as illegality, or misrepresentation, or other incidents of a contract, it is equally inappropriate to exclude relief on the basis of the identity of the contracting party, if relief would be available on ordinary contractual principles."
Companies Act 1985 36C(1) - European Communities Act 1972 9(2) - First EC Company Law Directive (68/151/CEE OJ No. 1968 L6) Art 7 - Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 2(1) 3
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Aubergine Enterprises Limited v Lakewood International Limited Gazette, 11 April 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 177; [2002] 1 WLR 2149
26 Feb 2002
CA
Lord Justice Auld, Lord Justice Ward, And, Lord Justice Robert Walker
Contract, Landlord and Tenant, Land
A sought confirmation that it had successfully rescinded a contract for the purchase of a leasehold property from L. Either party was to be able to rescind, if consent to the assignment had not obtained before three days before completion. There appeared to be confusion as to whether consent had been indicated between the solicitors. Held: Words in a letter 'subject to licence' had different effect where there was an existing legal relationship between the parties. The consent had been given sufficiently to comply with the contract, even though informal and conditional. The seller was not in breach, and the buyer was not free to rescind.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
LUK Leamington Ltd v Whitnash Plc and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 295
27 Feb 2002
CA

Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
WWF - World Wide Fund for Nature (Formerly World Wildlife Fund); World Wildlife Fund Inc v World Wrestling Federation Entertainment Inc Times, 12 March 2002; Gazette, 11 April 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 196
27 Feb 2002
CA
Lord Phillips M.R., Lord Justice Judge, Lord Justice Carnwath
Intellectual Property, Contract, Commercial
The claimant sought enforcement of a contract restricting the use by the appellant defendant of the initials 'WWF' in their trading. The agreement had been reached in settlement of an action for breach of the claimant's trade mark rights. The claimant was particularly concerned as to the injurious association with the respondent, and its use of the mark on the Internet. Held: The scratch logo used by the federation was a clear breach. They had not seriously sought to argue that they were not in breach of the agreement. The protection of the intellectual property rights of one business inevitably implies some restriction on the rights of others with potentially conflicting interests. There was no undue interference in the freedom of the defendant to trade. The breaches were clear, and the agreement was to be upheld. Appeal against summary judgement dismissed.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Vella v Institute for Independent Business [2002] EWCA Civ 410
28 Feb 2002
CA

Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
Hamilton v Papakura District Council and Watercare Services Ltd Times, 05 March 2002; [2002] 3 NZLR 308; [2002] BCL 310; Appeal No 57 of 2000; [2002] UKPC 9
28 Feb 2002
PC
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hutton, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Sir Andrew Leggatt and Sir Kenneth Keith
Utilities, Agriculture, Contract, Negligence, Nuisance, Commonwealth
(New Zealand) The claimants sought damages. The water authority had put in the water supply herbicides which damaged the crops they sought to grow, and which were watered from the supply. The plants were particularly sensitive to such chemicals. Held: Dismissing the company's appeal, the water supplier had a general duty to supply water to accepted standards. The water company had done this. The claimant had failed to show that it had brought its particular needs to the attention of the water company, and a claim in contract failed. The Ashington Piggeries case did not apply because in this case there was one supply of one product. Negligence could not be established without accepting a higher duty to some consumers. No such duty was established. The claims in nuisance, of having allowed the escape of materials brought onto their land, failed because there was no forseeability of this damage.
Sale of Goods Act 1893 14
1 Cites

[ PC ] - [ (1) G.J. Hamilton and ' target-'_ext'>PC ] - [ Bailii ] - [ PC ]
 
Nathan v Smilovitch and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 332
1 Mar 2002
CA
Aldous LJ
Contract
Application for leave to appeal.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Malcolm v University of Oxford Chancellor, Masters and Scholars [2002] EWCA Civ 331
1 Mar 2002
CA

Contract, Media

[ Bailii ]

 
 Drake v Thos Agnew and Sons Limited; QBD 8-Mar-2002 - [2002] EWHC 294 (QB)
 
RJT Consulting Engineers Ltd v DM Engineering (NI) Ltd Gazette, 11 April 2002; [2002] CILL 1841; (2002) 18 Const LJ 425; [2002] TCLR 21; 83 Con LR 99; [2002] EWCA Civ 270; [2002] CLC 905; [2002] 1 WLR 2344; [2002] BLR 217
8 Mar 2002
CA
Lords Justice Auld, Ward and Robert Walker
Construction, Contract, Arbitration
The court considered what would amount to a contract in writing under the 1996 Act. Ward LJ said: "Section 107(2) gives three categories where the agreement is to be treated in writing. The first is where the agreement, whether or not it is signed by the parties, is made in writing. That must mean where the agreement is contained in a written document which stands as a record of the agreement and all that was contained in the agreement. The second category, an exchange of communications in writing, likewise is capable of containing all that needs to be known about the agreement. One is therefore led to believe by what used to be known as the eiusdem generis rule that the third category will be to the same effect namely that the evidence in writing is evidence of the whole agreement.
Sub-section (3) is consistent with that view. Where the parties agree by reference to terms which are in writing, the legislature is envisaging that all of the material terms are in writing and that the oral agreement refers to that written record.
Sub-section (4) allows an agreement to be evidenced in writing if it (the agreement) is recorded by one of the parties or by a third party with the authority of the parties to the agreement. What is there contemplated is, thus, a record (which by sub-section (6) can be in writing or a record by any means) of everything which has been said. Again it is a record of the whole agreement." and "On the point of construction of section 107, what has to be evidenced in writing is, literally, the agreement, which means all of it, not part of it. A record of the agreement also suggests a complete agreement, not a partial one. . . It must be remembered that by virtue of section 107(1) the need for an agreement in writing is the precondition for the application of the other provisions of Part II of the Act, not just the jurisdictional threshold for a reference to adjudication. I say 'unfortunately' because, like Auld L.J. whose judgment I have now read in draft, I would regard it as a pity if too much 'jurisdictional wrangling' were to limit the opportunities for expeditious adjudication having an interim effect only. No doubt adjudicators will be robust in excluding the trivial from the ambit of the agreement and the matter must be entrusted to their common sense. "
Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 107
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
P and O Overseas Holdings Ltd v Rhys Braintree Ltd and Another Times, 05 April 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 296
12 Mar 2002
CA
Sir Andrew Morritt, Vice-Chancellor, Lord Justice Mantell and Lord Justice Tuckey
Contract, Land, Registered Land
The first defendant appealed the award of interest on an order for specific performance of a contract for the sale of land. It had declined to complete the purchase because the seller had not been registered as proprietor of the land, and the transfer to it had not been stamped. Held: The transfer to the seller would not be stamped until after completion, and that was not a good reason for delaying completion. Interest was payable from the date requested for completion since the seller was able to complete on that date.
Land Registration Act 1925 37 110(5)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Ali v Butt (T/A Nationwide Financial Services) [2002] EWCA Civ 394
13 Mar 2002
CA
Aldous LJ
Land, Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
Malt Mill Developments Ltd and Another v Davis [2002] EWCA Civ 440
13 Mar 2002
CA
Pill, Longmore LJJ, Sir Martin Nourse
Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
Express Newspapers v Telegraph Group Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 317
15 Mar 2002
CA
Lord Justice Aldous
Contract, Company
The parties entered into a joint venture for the provision of printing resources. This survived until one member company changed hands, when there were disagreements about a shareholder's agreement. There were difficulties of construction. Held: Because this was a pure construction of a commercial agreement, there was no restriction on appellate jurisdiction to interpret the document. In the circumstances there might be an unfair prejudice, and the striking out of the petitioner's claim should not stand.
Companies Act 1985 459
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Butlergrove Ltd v Cicely Commercials Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 491
22 Mar 2002
CA

Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
Michael Gerson (Leasing) Ltd v Loach and others [2002] EWCA Civ 450
26 Mar 2002
CA

Contract
Appeal against enforcement of terms of finance lease against guarantors.
[ Bailii ]
 
Criterion Properties Plc v Stratford UK Properties Llc and others [2002] EWHC 496 (Ch)
27 Mar 2002
ChD
The Hon Mr Justice Hart
Company, Contract
Criterion sought to set aside a shareholders agreement. Their partner had said they were concerned that another party was taking Criterion over and that this would put at risk their working relationships. The agreement sought to add a poison pill to prevent such a takeover. It was asserted that the agreement constituted dishonest assistance by the defendant in entering into an agreement in excess of the board's powers. Held: There was a triable issue that the put option created was in excess of the power of the board. However, the agreement was 'motivated not by a desire to advance or protect the commercial interests of Criterion but from a desire contingently to cripple those interests so as to deter an unwanted predator. ' and so was unenforceable.
Limited Partnership Act 1907
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Corporation [2002] EWCA Civ 515
27 Mar 2002
CA

Torts - Other, Contract
Appeal in Spares action
[ Bailii ]
 
Parsons Plastics (Research and Development) Ltd v Purac Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 459
12 Apr 2002
CA
The Hon Mr Justice Latham
Construction, Contract, Arbitration
The claimants were main contractors on a construction project. The respondents were sub-contractors. After difficulties, the sub-contractor was ejected from the site. The issue was as to the jurisdiction of the adjudicator. Was the project, to create a sewage station, a 'construction operation' within the Act? Held: The sum was due under the contract irrespective of whether an adjudicator also found it to be due. The contract could not be re-read to exclude the arbitration requirement. In this case the contractors were unlikely to succeed in any attempt to deny the sub-contractors their right to payment for works done, and payment should not be delayed for a set off claim. The judge was entitled, in her discretion, to make an interim award.
Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
David Barry v Bateman Catering Limited EAT/1515/00
12 Apr 2002
EAT
His Hon Judge Clark
Employment, Contract
EAT Contract of Employment - Breach of Contract
The employee had been subject to a TUPE transfer which preserved certain rights, excluding application of the new employers staff handbook. Later he signed a new contract applying the staff contract. The employer claimed he was entitled to the redundancy payment as set out in the first handbook. Held: The contact had been varied. There was a distinction to be made between a statement of terms and a contract, but the variations in this case were to the contract. The variations included individually negotiated improvements in terms, and the move to the staff handbook was part of the new agreement.

 
Medivance Instruments Ltd v Gaslane Pipework Services Ltd and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 500
18 Apr 2002
CA

Contract

Sale of Goods Act 1979 14
[ Bailii ]
 
Able and others v IBC Vehicles Ltd EAT/409/01
20 Apr 2002
EAT
His Hon Judge Clark
Employment, Contract
The parties sought construction of a term of the contract of employment as to the payments due when an employee was not required to work (lay-off). It provided for a payment during such a period, but the company suspended the clause after two weeks. Had the company given appropriate notice? Held: The EAT was in as good a position as the original tribunal to construe a document. There were no issues of fact to settle. The clause required work to be unavailable at the time when the notice was given. The company could not give notice anticipating reduced demand. The idea was to give the workforce a breathing space once the company found itself in this position. There had been an unlawful deduction from the wages.

 
Briscoe v Lubrizol Limited [2002] EWCA Civ 508; [2002] IRLR 607; [2002] Emp LR 819
23 Apr 2002
CA
Lord Justice Ward Lord Justice Potter And Mr Justice Bodey
Employment, Contract
The claimant had been employed by the respondents. Having been injured he claimed under a long-term disability scheme underwritten by insurers. They discontinued payment, and the company dismissed him. He now claimed damages for breach of contract. The issue centered on whether his benefit was governed by the company handbook or the insurance policy. Held: The handbook governed the contract, but incorporated the terms and benefits of the policy. The company had tried to contact him to discuss a return to work. They claimed to be entitled to treat his failure to reply as repudiatory of the contract. Though it is necessary for an employee to co-operate, the employer had concealed the true reason for the meetings requested, and the behaviour did not amount to repudiation.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Sabah Shipyard (Pakistan) Ltd v Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 650
24 Apr 2002
CA

Jurisdiction, Contract

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Heaton and Others v AXA Equity and Law Life Assurance Society plc and Another; HL 25-Apr-2002 - Times, 15 May 2002; [2002] UKHL 15; [2002] CPLR 475; [2002] CP Rep 52; [2003] 1 CLC 37; [2002] 2 AC 329; [2002] 2 WLR 1081; [2002] 2 All ER 961
 
Eurodata Systems plc v Michael Gershon (Finance) plc Times, 25 March 2003
26 Apr 2002
QBD
Geddes J
Contract, Financial Services
A lease finance provider sent invoice instructions to the claimant company, but these were accompanied by oral instructions requiring the execution of the equipment leases first. The leases were not signed. The defendant issued a cheque but cancelled it. Held: A contract had not been made and the defendant was not liable. The requirement that the equipment leases be signed was a necessary pre-condition to the contract coming into existence. There was no consideration given for the cheque and the defendant was not liable for its countermanding.

 
Messer UK Ltd and Another v Britvic Soft Drinks Ltd and others Times, 22 May 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 548
30 Apr 2002
CA
Tomlinson J
Contract, Commercial
The parties contracted for the supply of material to be used in the manufacture of drinks. The material was to be supplied according to a recognised British Standard. Held: The use of the British Standard of itself was not sufficient to imply any warranty of satisfactory quality or fitness for purpose upon which a purchaser could rely. Nevertheless, the manufacturer could not rely upon a term excluding liability for breach of warranty under the 1979 Act since this term was unreasonable under the 1977 Act.
Sale of Goods Act 1979 14 - Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 3
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Knight and Another v AAA (Euro) Ltd and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 758
10 May 2002
CA
Clarke LJ, Sir Swinton Thomas
Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
Kleinwort Benson Limited v City of Glasgow Council 2002 SCLR 714; [2002] ScotCS 132
10 May 2002
OHCS
Lord Macfadyen
Local Government, Contract
Action arising from interest rate swap agreements
[ Bailii ]
 
Jordan v One 2 One Personal Communications Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 644
13 May 2002
CA

Company, Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
Clegg and Another v Andersson (Trading As Nordic Marine) [2002] EWHC 943 (QB)
21 May 2002
QBD
His Honour Judge Richard Seymour Q.C.
Contract

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Phoenix Finance Limited vFederation Internationale De L'automobile, Formula One Management Limited, Formula One Administration Limited Times, 27 June 2002; Gazette, 27 June 2002; EWHC 1028 (Ch); [2002] EWHC 1028 (Ch)
22 May 2002
ChD
The Vice Chancellor
Contract, Arbitration, Costs, Civil Procedure Rules
The claimant had purchased the interests of a failed Formula One car racing team, including, it said, the right to enter a team in Formula One races. It claimed to have been unlawfully excluded from racing. Held: The claimant had failed to comply with the requirements imposed upon participants, and was not entitled to race. Since the claimant sought rights under the contract, it was bound by the agreement to refer disputes to arbitration. As to costs, there was still a need to serve a letter before action, and in the absence of such a letter, even in a case where there was no pre-action protocol, a party could not complain if he was ordered to pay the other party's costs on an indemnity basis.
Arbitration Act 1996 9 44 - Civil Procedure Rules
1 Cites

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Hilton v Barker Booth & Eastwood (a Firm) Times, 06 June 2002; Gazette, 06 June 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 723; [2002] Lloyds Rep PN 500
22 May 2002
CA
Lord Justice Jonathan Parker, Walker LJ
Legal Professions, Professional Negligence, Contract
The firm of solicitors acted for both parties in a conveyancing transaction, in a situation when they were permitted to do so. The firm had previously acted for one party in a case where he had been convicted of a crime. The other party said the solicitors had a duty to them to disclose this fact about the other party. Held: The solicitors were not under a duty to disclose to their client something which had come to their knowledge in an unrelated earlier transaction. The duty of disclosure depended upon the extent of the retainer. He had a duty to keep confidential information derived from an earlier transaction. If a solicitor acted for two parties, he may become obliged to disclose to the other information obtained in the course of that retainer, and could not excuse his duty to one by reference to the duty to the other.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Meretz Investments Nv v ACP Ltd; QBD 27-May-2002 - [2002] EWHC 1019 (QB)
 
Lee Hedley O'Brien v MGN Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 780
29 May 2002
CA

Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
Hallam Land Management Ltd v UK Coal Mining Ltd and another Gazette, 20 June 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 982
30 May 2002
CA
Lords Justice Thorpe, Rix and Arden
Land, Contract
An option was granted for the sale of land subject to planning consent being granted. Eventually it was sought to exercise the option in respect of part only of the land. Held: Though words in the contract made reference to all or part of the land, the references to the planning application were to the whole site, and in this context the option became exercisable only on the grant of permission for a substantial part of the site. This was not a substantial part. Landscaping works on other parts of the site would not count as development against this background and business context.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Interleasing (UK) Ltd v Morris Gazette, 08 August 2002
30 May 2002
ChD
Mr Justice Lightman
Company, Contract
On a share sale agreement, a retention was made with respect to a possible action. A clause in the agreement created a procedure for counsel's opinion to be obtained as to its chances. The buyer obtained counsel's opinion as provided. Held: The defendant would not be allowed to go behind counsel's opinion to challenge its basis or the instructions which led to it. It had been intended to act as a form of certificate to secure the money at issue until trial, and the only issue was as to whether it stood in the form agreed.

 
Marsden v Elston and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 866
31 May 2002
CA

Company, Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
Kinoo Sons Limited v Bibi Sarah Hossen Abdool and The Conservator of Mortgage Appeal No 55 of 2001; [2002] UKPC 30
11 Jun 2002
PC

Commonwealth, Land, Contract
(Mauritius) - Plots of land had been inherited, and were now in the joint ownership of 20 people. Some sought a sale. A sale was ordered, and the resulting award challenged. The contract provided for a right of substitution for the purchasers of the objectors to the sale, but is was suggested that this was merely a referral to a statutory right which would not apply in this case. Held: A right of substitution is no different from a right of pre-emption, and could be contractual in nature. The right of substitution formed part and parcel of the conditions of sale, notwithstanding that the basis of that right might be wrongly stated.
[ PC ] - [ Bailii ] - [ PC ]
 
Brian McGowan v Summit at Lloyds Times, 11 July 2002
12 Jun 2002
SCS
Lord Marnoch and Lady Cosgrove and Lord Reed
Scotland, Contract, Jurisdiction
The contract provided for the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts. The claimant challenged this under the Act. Held The 1982 Act modified art 17 of the Convention when putting it in effect. That difference did not lead to the conclusion that Parliament intended to prevent parties contracting to exclude the jurisdiction of one jurisdiction within the UK from another. The words had to be construed in accordance with their natural meaning. Surrounding factors could be considered, including whether either party could invoke it, its specific agreement, whether it was a pre-printed agreement, and whether the burden would fall one party more than the other. These factors are not exhaustive. Since English jurisdiction already existed, the clause must be declaratory or providing exclusivity. Some such factors did apply here and the clause would not be construed so as to restrict jurisdiction to eth English courts.
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 Sch 4 Art 17 - Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 17
1 Cites

[ ScotC ]
 
Regent Associates Ltd v Brazier and others [2002] EWCA Civ 999
17 Jun 2002
CA

Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
Latvian Shipping Company and Others v Stocznia Gdanska Sa [2002] EWCA Civ 889; [2002] 2 Lloyd's Rep 436; [2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 768
21 Jun 2002
CA
Lord Justice Aldous, Tuckey, Rix LJ
Contract, Torts - Other
A payment condition was just that and that a failure to pay entitled the seller to terminate at common law. Rix LJ said: "It is established law that, where one party to a contract has repudiated it, the other may validly accept that repudiation by bringing the contract to an end, even if he gives a wrong reason for doing so or no reason at all".
Rix LJ set out the policy considerations of the "wide ranging" tort of inducing breach of contract: "The tort is an economic tort designed to place limits on the self-interested rough and tumble of the business world. Its philosophical basis appears to be that contracts should be kept rather than broken. Where, as here, A (Latco) procures B's (Latreefers') breach of his contract with C (the yard), adopting it as his own because he is interested to do so, seeking a benefit for himself or a fortiori a detriment for C, and does so deliberately, knowingly and intending the breach to take place, then A puts himself in the way of incurring a liability, even though not himself a party to the contract, unless (i) he does not directly procure the breach, and (ii) he uses no (relevant) unlawful means, or (iii) he can claim some justification. The significance of (i) is that where A directly procures a breach of contract he makes himself as it were directly privy to the breach. The significance of (ii) is that in the absence of making himself privy to the breach, he cannot be faulted as long as he acts as he is entitled to act, but if (deliberately, knowingly and intending the breach to take place) he commits an unlawful act, by which I have in mind an unlawful act of sufficient causative relevance, then he renders himself liable. It may be that unlawful means ought to be necessary even where there is direct procurement (see the wide-ranging work by Hazel Carty, An Analysis of the Economic Torts, 2001, at 82). The significance of (iii), an area which has not been clearly worked out in the cases, appears to be that there may be moral or perhaps economic factors which may mitigate even to the point of justifying conduct otherwise incurring a prima facie liability."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Hawsons Chartered Accountants (A Firm) v Sheehan and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 993
28 Jun 2002
CA

Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
Clark v Chandler Gazette, 11 July 2002
28 Jun 2002
CA
Lords Justice Thorpe and Chadwick and Mr Justice Wall
Land, Contract, Equity, Wills and Probate
The respondent had purchased a property in her sole name, but held the property with her husband. On a breakdown of the marriage, he signed a transfer of the property but the consideration was not settled. After his death, it was argued that the document was ineffective under the 1989 Act because it had not been signed by both parties. Held: The property was actually held under a joint tenancy. The failure to settle the consideration was enough to defeat its interpretation even as a conditional disposition. Accordingly the joint tenancy had not been severed, and the widow took the entire property by survivorship.
Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 2 - Law of Property Act 1925 53(1)(c)

 
Singh v Singh [2002] EWCA Civ 992
28 Jun 2002
CA

Contract

[ Bailii ]

 
 Iran Continental Shelf Oil Co 7 Others v IRI International Corp; CA 28-Jun-2002 - [2002] EWCA Civ 1024; [2004] 2 CLC 696
 
Ennstone Building Products Ltd v Stanger Ltd Gazette, 12 September 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 916; [2002] 1 WLR 3059
28 Jun 2002
CA
Lords Justice Potter and Keene
Jurisdiction, Contract
Two companies with head offices in England and subsidiary offices in Scotland, contracted for work to be done in Scotland. The contract was silent as to the applicable law. Held: Where both companies traded in England, the presumptions under the convention were not to be set aside merely because the place of performance and direct control under the contract were in Scotland. The contract was most closely connected with England and issues arising were to be tried there.
Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990
[ Bailii ]
 
Powell v Pallisers of Hereford Ltd and others [2002] EWCA Civ 959
1 Jul 2002
CA
Potter, Chadwick LJJ
Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
Alty v Bargain Booze Ltd and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 1051
1 Jul 2002
CA

Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
Makhni v Global Hotels Ltd and others [2002] EWCA Civ 965
2 Jul 2002
CA

Torts - Other, Employment, Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
Michael Gerson (Leasing) Ltd v Loach and others [2002] EWCA Civ 1031
10 Jul 2002
CA

Contract
Construction on the provisions relating to the payment of interest in an equipment lease agreement.
[ Bailii ]
 
BCT Software Solutions Lt v Arnold Laver and Co [2002] EWCA Civ 1033
11 Jul 2002
CA

Contract
Whether software licence was for indefinite term or determinate term.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Niru Battery Manufacturing Company and Another v Milestone Trading Ltd and others [2002] EWHC 1425 (Commercial); [2002] All ER (Comm) 705
11 Jul 2002
ComC
Moore-Bick J
Contract

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Otis Vehicle Rentals Ltd v Ciceley Commercials Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1064
12 Jul 2002
CA
Peter Gibson, Potter LJJ< Sir Murray Stuart-Smith
Contract

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Deepak Fertilizers and Petrochemical Ltd v Davy Mckee (UK) London Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1396
12 Jul 2002
CA
Lord Justice Brooke
Contract

[ Bailii ]

 
 Esso Petroleum Company Ltd v Addison and others; ComC 15-Jul-2002 - [2003] EWHC 1730 (Comm)
 
Brewin Dolphin Securities Ltd v Kalaji and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 1294
17 Jul 2002
CA

Financial Services, Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
Howard v Charlton Times, 19 August 2002; Gazette, 26 September 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1086
25 Jul 2002
CA
Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Clarke and Lord Justice Carnwath
Housing, Contract
The applicant had a mobile home with the benefit of protection under the Act. He built a permanent porch for the home. The land owner appealed refusal of an order to say that she had lost her rights under the Act. He argued that it had lost its mobility. Held. The judge had held that the essential nature of the dwelling had not changed. This was the wrong test. The agreement under which she had first occupied the land included the characterisation of the occupation as protected under the Act. The test was whether that agreement had been validly terminated. It had not.
Mobiles Home Act 1983 29
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
AON Risk Services (Uk) Limited v Edward John Mansell Child-Villiers [2002] EWCA Civ 1118
26 Jul 2002
CA
Lord Justice Laws, Lord Justice May, Lord Phillips Master of the Rolls
Contract, Employment
The employee claimed commission on the acquisition of a major corporate client. The company claimed that the commission agreement related only to private client work. The company now appealed a finding against it. Held: The recorder had amended his judgement, which was doubtful as correct. He had awarded the same sum both on a quantum meruit basis, and on an incentive payment basis. This suggested a lack of understanding of the issues. The decision was set aside. The contract and background suggested that he was to introduce private client work, and incentive payments outside that scope did not apply. On a quantum meruit basis he would be entitled to a lesser sum calculated in a similar way to incentives payable to others within the corporate division.
[ Bailii ]
 
Ritsma v Allen [2002] EWCA Civ 1274
26 Jul 2002
CA

Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
CNA Insurance Company (Europe) Ltd v Servico International Ltd and others [2002] EWCA Civ 1257
29 Jul 2002
CA

Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
Rickards and Another v Jones and others [2002] EWCA Civ 1344
29 Jul 2002
CA

Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
Bates v Microstar Ltd and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 1296
30 Jul 2002
CA

Contract

[ Bailii ]

 
 The Estate of Mohammed Sabir Raja (Deceased) v Austin Gray (A Firm); QBD 31-Jul-2002 - [2002] EWHC 1607 (QB)
 
Carlton Communications Plc, Granada Media Plc v The Football League [2002] EWHC 1650 (Comm)
1 Aug 2002
ComC
The Honourable Mr Justice Langley
Contract, Media, Company
The applicants sought a declaration that they had not provided guarantees to support a contract between a joint venture company owned by them, OnDigital, and the respondent to screen football matches. The company had become insolvent. Held: The applicants had indicated in the initial bid document that they would guarantee the bid, but that guarantee had not been incorporated into the later documents. OnDigital was not able to bind the claimants. The bid had been renegotiated and reformulated before being signed. A guarantee had to be in writing, and the initial statement had been superceded. Subject to contract negotiations remain in negotiation until a formal contract is concluded. A company is not the agent of its shareholders. A declaration that the claimants had not guaranteed the contract was granted.
Statute of Frauds 1677 4
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Pankhania and Another v Hackney and Another [2002] EWHC 2441 (Ch)
2 Aug 2002
ChD
Rex Tedd QC J
Contract, Land, Torts - Other
The claimant sought damages alleging misrepresentation of land sold at auction.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Jewson Ltd v Kelly Times, 03 October 2002
2 Aug 2002
QBD
David Foskett QC
Contract
The claimant sought payment for some boilers. The defendant argued that they were not of a satisfactory quality. The boilers were bought to be installed in new dwellings, but could not be shown to meet the standards advertised. Held: The goods having been sold in the course of a business, there was a term as to satisfactory quality. That was to be judged according to the standards of a reasonable person viewing the goods in the hands of an individual buyer with the individual's characteristics and with the background of his particular needs. In this case the goods failed to meet that standard.
Sale of Goods Act 1979 14(2) - Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994 1(1)
1 Citers


 
Ritsma v Allen [2002] EWCA Civ 1413
10 Sep 2002
CA

Contract
Renewed application for permission to appeal out of time
[ Bailii ]
 
Scottish and Newcastle v Dixon [2002] EWCA Civ 1442
3 Oct 2002
CA

Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
Lam v Federation of Small Businesses [2002] EWCA Civ 1457
4 Oct 2002
CA

Contract

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
McMeekin v Long [2003] 29 EG 120
4 Oct 2002
QBD
Astill J
Torts - Other, Contract
The sellers of a property did not disclose potential disputes with their neighbours about parking over an access way and the dumping of rubbish. They claimed that in each case they had taken advice and had accepted it and there had been no further disagreement, and that there had therefore been no dispute. The solicitor in his replies to standard Part II enquiries confirmed that the sellers replies were accurate so far as he knew. It was clear however that the potential for dispute remained and that it had been long running and personal. The form also asked if complaints had ever been received. Held: The sellers were guilty of a fraudulent misrepresentation. The evidence established to a sufficient standard, that the sellers had acted fraudulently, and, since the claimant would not have purchased the property if they had known of the difficulties, they had relied upon the misrepresentations and could claim in damages. Damages of £67,000 were awarded.

 
Dymocks Franchise Systems (NSW) Pty Limited v John Todd and Alicia B Todd Bilgola Enterprises Ltd and Lambton Quay Books Ltd [2002] UKPC 50; [2004] 1 WLR 2807
7 Oct 2002
PC
Lord Hutton, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Sir Malcolm Pill
Commonwealth, Contract
PC (New Zealand) The claimants asserted that the respondents had wrongly terminated their franchise licence. The agreement was subject to the New South Wales law requiring good faith, but the court had not had expert assistance for interpretation. Held: Whatever the underlying law, the agreement depended upon the parties acting in good faith and working together. In such circumstances a statement that the claimants would not take further part in franchising activities amounted to a repudiation. The common law on the existence of a duty of good faith under contract internationally is not clear, and it was wrong to try to resolve such questions by books alone and without expert evidence. "These were not ordinary commercial contracts but contracts giving rise to long term mutual obligations in pursuance of what amounted in substance to a joint venture and therefore dependent upon co-ordinated action and co-operation." The lower courts had failed to make proper allowance for all the evidence they had heard, and the appeal was to be allowed.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ PC ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Cotton v Enterprise Inns Plc [2002] EWCA Civ 1775
10 Oct 2002
CA
Laws LJ
Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
Podgorica v Bishopscourt (BB and Co) Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1468
10 Oct 2002
CA

Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
Cable and Wireless Plc v IBM United Kingdom Ltd [2002] EWHC 2059 (Comm)
11 Oct 2002
ComC

Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris (International) Ltd Times, 17 October 2002; Gazette, 07 November 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1407; [2003] QB 679; [2002] 2 Lloyd's Rep 653; [2002] 4 All ER 689
14 Oct 2002
CA
Lord Phillips MR, May, Laws LLJ
Litigation Practice, Contract, Equity
The parties contracted for the hire of a ship. They were each under a mistaken impression as to its position, and a penalty became payable. The hirer claimed that the equitable doctrine of mutual mistake should forgive him liability. Held: Over the years there had been a conflict caused by Lord Denning's creation of an equitable doctrine of common mistake. That could no longer be allowed to continue, and no such doctrine could apply, and rescission was not available. There was no clear way of distinguishing mistakes which were fundamental to the contract. The fact that a bargain produced a worse position for one party was insufficient to found a rescission unless the mistake is such that it makes the contract adventure impossible. Two of the elements which must be present if common mistake is to avoid a contract are the non-existence of the state of affairs must render contractual performance impossible; and the state of affairs must be the existence, or a vital attribute, of the consideration to be provided or circumstances which must subsist if performance of the contractual adventure is to be possible.
Lord Phillips MR set out five condition which must be present if a contract was to be avoided as a mistake: "(i) there must be a common assumption as to the existence of a state of affairs; (ii) there must be no warranty by either party that that state of affairs exists; (iii) the non-existence of the state of affairs must not be attributable to the fault of either party; (iv) the non-existence of the state of affairs must render performance of the contract impossible; (v) the state of affairs may be the existence, or a vital attribute, of the consideration to be provided or circumstances which must subsist if performance of the contractual adventure is to be possible."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Spectra International Plc v Tiscali UK Ltd and Another [2002] EWHC 2084 (Comm)
15 Oct 2002
ComC

Contract

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Christie Owen and Davies Plc v Sykes and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 1663
15 Oct 2002
CA

Contract, Agency
Liability to estate agent for payment of account.
[ Bailii ]
 
Isoft Group Plc v Misys Holdings Limited, Misys Plc [2002] EWHC 2094 (Ch)
16 Oct 2002
QBD
Mr Justice Lawrence Collins
Company, Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
ED and F Man Liquid Products Ltd v Patel and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 1550
16 Oct 2002
CA

Contract
Application for leave to appeal
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Albright and Wilson UK Limited v Biachem Limited and others; Albright and Wilson UK Limited v Biachem Limited and others (conjoined appeals) [2002] UKHL 37; [2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 753; [2003] 1 CLC 637
17 Oct 2002
HL
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Hoffmann Lord Hutton Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
Contract
The claimants ordered chemicals from the defendant, but there were errors in the order and subsequently. The chemical was mixed with others causing an explosion. The Court of Appeal accepted that the delivery of one load cannot be the performance of two contracts each for one load. Held: The decision of the Court of Appeal could not be supported. Whether the load of sodium chlorite was delivered pursuant to the contract made by Berk or the contract made by Biachem was determined by reference to the contents of the tank, not the document which accompanied the contents of the tank. In each of the contracts, the primary obligation was to deliver a particular chemical; the obligation to hand over an accurate delivery note with the chemical was a subsidiary obligation. Therefore as the load which was delivered was a load of sodium chlorite, that delivery was made in pursuance of Berk's contract notwithstanding that Biachem's delivery note was handed to Albright & Wilson.
[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Norsk Hydro Asa v The State Property Fund of Ukraine and others [2002] EWHC 2120 (Comm)
18 Oct 2002
ComC

Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
Ministry of Defence v Country and Metropolitan Homes (Rissington) Ltd and Another Times, 07 November 2002
22 Oct 2002
ChD
Rimer J
Contract
A transfer of land included overage provisions providing for payment of compensation if the land was developed within a certain period. They claimed that additional clauses needed to be implied. Held: Whether a clause was to be implied was a question of law, not fact. Here the contract was workable without the implied terms, and could be given business efficacy without them. The clause would not be implied.

 
Balal v Woolhouse [2002] EWCA Civ 1593
24 Oct 2002
CA

Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
Huyton S A v Distribuidora Internacional De Productos Agricolas S A [2002] EWHC 2088 (Comm)
25 Oct 2002
ComC

Contract
Cargo of sesame seeds
[ Bailii ]
 
Compensation Specialists Ltd and others v Compensation Claims Services Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1603
25 Oct 2002
CA

Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
Marcq v Christe Manson and Woods (t/a Christies) Times, 25 November 2002; Gazette, 28 November 2002
29 Oct 2002
QBD
Jack J
Agency, Contract, Torts - Other
The claimant sought damages for conversion from the respondent auctioneers as bailees. The painting had been registered as stolen. It failed to achieve its reserve and had been returned. Held: It was for a bailee to prove that he had acted in good faith. That meant that he was not aware that the person for whom he held the goods was not the true owner. The situation differed where the goods were purchased, and where ownership passed. A bailee could be liable if he did not act in good faith and without notice (Hollins). Christies had made enquiry in the art loss register, and been reassured that it was not stolen. In the circumstances the claimant had to be given an opportunity to deal with issues raised in the response. An auctioneer who receives goods from their apparent owner and simply redelivers them to him when they are unsold is not liable in conversion provided he has acted in good faith and without knowledge of any adverse claim to them.
Limitation Act 1980 4
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Swycher v Vakil and others [2002] EWCA Civ 1668
29 Oct 2002
CA

Contract, Company

[ Bailii ]
 
Mamidoil-Jetoil Greek Petroleum Company Sa and Another v Okta Crude Oil Refinery Ad [2002] EWHC 2210 (Comm); [2003] 1 Lloyd's Rep 1
4 Nov 2002
ComC
Aikens J
Contract

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Pharmed Medicare Private Ltd v Univar Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1569; [2003] 1 All ER (Comm) 321
5 Nov 2002
CA
Lord Justice Chadwick, Lord Justice Longmore
Contract, Agency
An issue was raised that contracts entered into by the defendant by an "Industry Manager" and an "Inside Sales Manager" were not so entered as the two individuals had no authority and because the contracts were for substantial quantities of the goods in question. Longmore LJ said: "Here all Mr Waksman could rely on was the fact that the contract for 8 metric tons per month for a year (96 tons in all) was considerably greater than any previous contract. This is undoubtedly true but no suggestion is or can be made that Pharmed knew that Mr Somerville did not have authority to make such an agreement. The most that can be said is that they ought to have suspected he might not have such authority. But why? Previous transactions, albeit for smaller amounts, had been performed. Mr Waksman says that if Pharmed had only insisted on a Purchase Contract form for the full amount, the lack of authority would have become apparent. But if, as the Deputy Judge held (and this is not now challenged), there was no positive requirement derived from previous transactions that the contract be on Univar's Purchase Contract form, there was nothing to suggest to Mr Aurora that the transaction might not be authorised. If there were a plausible assertion that Mr Aurora did in fact suspect that the transaction was beyond Mr Somerville's authority, there might then have to be a trial. But no ground exists to support the existence of any such suspicion on his part.
The question whether such suspicion ought to have existed is a matter that can be decided without the need for oral evidence since Mr Aurora (and still less Mr Somerville) could give no relevant admissible evidence on that question. That is for the court and the Deputy Judge correctly decided he could determine the matter on the material before him.
For my part I cannot see why any grounds for suspicion should have existed. Previous transactions had been honoured. No one in Univar had made any suggestion that Mr Somerville's authority was, in any way, limited. There was no reason to think that Univar would not want to acquire or be unable to distribute 8 metric tons per month, if the price was right. No complaint was, in fact, made about the transaction until Univar realised the price had not risen as far as they had expected. The authorities cited by Mr Waksman were entirely different from the facts of the present case. In Houghton the fact that should have put the third party on inquiry was the fact that the money of one company was being used to pay the debts of another; in Underwood it was the fact that the agent was paying into his own account a cheque made out to his principal. These were, on any view, surprising facts which truly rendered the transactions suspicious. There is nothing remotely comparable in the present case.
In these circumstances, despite the caution which a court must exercise before giving summary judgment, it seems to me that the Deputy Judge was right to conclude that it was clear that Mr Somerville had ostensible authority to conclude the contract of 14th August and that Univar was bound by it."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Scott v Newton and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 1743
8 Nov 2002
CA

Contract, Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Hewlett Packard Ltd v Severn Trent Systems Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1778
14 Nov 2002
CA

Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
Ragan v Chaytor and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 1892
15 Nov 2002
CA
Kay LJ
Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
Crest Nicholson Residential (South) Ltd v McAllister Times, 10 December 2002; [2003] 1 All ER 46; [2002] EWHC 2776 (Ch)
18 Nov 2002
ChD
Neuberger J
Contract
A vendor/purchaser covenant was not to use the premises, "for any purpose other than those of or in connection with a private dwellinghouse." The parties requested the court to construe its meaning. The meaning had been considered before and settled although it was said that the words remained ambiguous. Held: There was a substantial advantage to parties to legal documents knowing in advance the meaning of their documents. Certainty avoided risk, doubt and legal costs. Accordingly even though the court should recognise the real dangers of transporting interpretations from one document to another, where a phrase had had assigned a clear meaning by the Court of Appeal, the court should depart from that interpretation only with good reason.
Neuberger J said that the covenant prevented the erection of more than one dwelling house on a plot. He emphasised the importance of the wording of the particular covenant and its circumstances, and further that that the use of the indefinite article "a" connotes or may connote some form of singularity. Further, it was desirable that, for the guidance of practitioners, words used in covenants should have a consistent meaning. In Dobbs -v- Linford an assumption had been made, subject of course to the context, that the expression "a private dwellinghouse" indicated the limitation of the property to one dwelling house and no more. Neuberger J continued: "If, as in the case before me, a plot cannot be used other than for the purposes of a dwelling house, then, as I see it, the covenant is directed to the plot as a whole. If there are two dwelling houses on the plot, then the plot, viewed as a single entity, is not being used for or in connection with 'a dwellinghouse', but for or in connection with 'two dwellinghouses'. However, where, as in Briggs' case, [that being a reference to Briggs and another v McCusker [1996] 2 EGLR 197] the covenant also extends to 'any part' of the plot or, even more, 'any buildings . . thereon', it is rather easier to contend that the draftsman had in mind the notion that any building erected on the plot was either to be a dwelling house or to be used in connection with a dwelling house. I am not saying that that is the correct approach to the covenant in Briggs' case, but it does appear to me to give a real basis for distinguishing that decision."
Law of Property Act 1925 78
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Amiri Flight Authority v BAE Systems Plc and Another [2002] EWHC 2481 (Comm)
20 Nov 2002
ComC

Contract

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Maile and Another v Hopwood [2002] EWCA Civ 1798
22 Nov 2002
CA

Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
Middlesborough Football and Athletic Company (1986) Ltd v Liverpool Football and Athletic Grounds Plc [2002] EWCA Civ 1929
25 Nov 2002
CA

Contract
The claimants alleged that the defendant having bought from them the football player Christian Ziege, the defendant had in breach of that contract sold on the player to Tottenham Hotspurs. Held: Even if the defendants had broken the League's rules, the damages would be nominal.
[ Bailii ]
 
Ashton Graham (A Firm) v Sherman [2002] EWCA Civ 1794
2 Dec 2002
CA

Contract, Financial Services

[ Bailii ]
 
Air Foyle Ltd and Another v Center Capital Ltd [2002] EWHC 2535 (Comm)
3 Dec 2002
ComC

Contract
Title to aircraft
[ Bailii ]
 
Pattinson v Flack [2002] EWCA Civ 1762; [2002] EWCA Civ 1820
4 Dec 2002
CA
Lord Justice Chadwick Lord Justice Ward Sir Denis Henry <
Contract

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Robertson v Anderson Times, 02 January 2003; [2002] ScotCS 312
5 Dec 2002
IHCS
Lord MacLean, Kord Reed, Lord Weir
Contract, Human Rights, Scotland
The parties had agreed to share any winnings from their Bingo activities. One sought to reject the contract as an unenforceable gaming contract. Held: It had been suggested that there had been no intention to create legally binding obligations. A promise given in purely social circumstances might not normally be found to be intended to create a legally binding contract, but it was necessary to look at the actual intentions of the parties, and such an intention might be inferred. It could be inferred here. As to gaming contracts, neither party was betting with the other. The contract related to gaming but was not itself a gaming contract.
1 Cites

[ ScotC ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Boal v Ferguson (T/A Atlantic Collection Agency International) [2002] NIIT 167
5 Dec 2002
NIIT

Northern Ireland, Contract
Breach of Contract
[ Bailii ]
 
P&O Nedlloyd Ltd and Another v M and M Militzer and Munch Internation Holding AG [2002] EWHC 2622 (Comm); [2003] 1 Lloyd's Rep 503
6 Dec 2002
ComC
Cresswell J
Contract, Transport

[ Bailii ]
 
PCB Media Ltd v Kolocraft Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1910
12 Dec 2002
CA

Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
Kelly v Capital Bank [2002] ScotCS 317
13 Dec 2002
SCS

Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
Criterion Properties Plc v Stratford UK Properties Llc and others [2002] EWCA Civ 1883; [2003] 2 BCLC 129
18 Dec 2002
CA

Contract

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Criterion Properties Plc v Stratford UK Properties and others [2002] EWCA Civ 1783; [2003] 1 WLR 218
18 Dec 2002
CA
Lord Justice Brooke Lord Justice Carnwath
Company, Contract
The parties came together in a limited partnership to develop property. The appeal was against a refusal to grant summary judgment on a claim that one party had been induced to enter the contract by a fraudulent misrepresentation. Held: In this case, the defendant knew of the unlawful activity, and had no arguable defence, and summary judgment should have been given.
Limited Partnership Act 1907
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Sam Business Systems Ltd v Hedley and Company [2002] EWHC 2733 (TCC)
19 Dec 2002
TCC
Bowsher QC J
Negligence, Contract

1 Cites

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