Proforce Recruit Ltd v The Rugby Group Ltd: CA 17 Feb 2006

The parties to a contract disputed the meaning of the phrase ‘preferred supplier status’ in a service cleaning agreement. The Court was asked whether an otherwise unarguable case on construction could be saved from being struck out by reference to the meaning that it was alleged that the parties had in their negotiations placed on that phrase.
Held: the appeal against a strike out was allowed. It might be appropriate to construe the phrase in the light of the parties negotiations.
Mummery LJ said: ‘Also, as stated in Chitty on Contracts, evidence of facts about which the parties were negotiating is admissible to explain what meaning was intended and evidence of what the parties said in negotiations is admissible to show that the parties negotiated on an agreed basis that the words used bore a particular meaning.’
Mummery LJ
[2006] EWCA Civ 69
England and Wales
CitedPartenreedesei Karen Oltmann v Scarsdale Shipping Co Ltd (The Karen Oltmann) 1976
The parties disputed the application of the word ‘after’ in a break-clause in a charter party which provided that ‘Charterers to have the option to redeliver the vessel after 12 months’ trading subject giving 3 months’ notice’. By their negotiations . .
CitedThomas Witter v TBP Industries Ltd ChD 15-Jul-1994
An award of damages for misrepresentation required that there had at some time been a right of rescission, not necessarily a continuing right to rescind.
An acknowledgement of non-reliance clause has become a common part of modern commercial . .

Cited by:
CitedChartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd and Another ChD 2-Mar-2007
The claimants had entered into an agreement with the defendant house-builder for the development of a site which the claimants had recently acquired. The structure of the agreement was that the developer would obtain planning permission and, under . .
CitedGreat Hill Equity Partners Ii Lp v Novator One Lp and others ComC 22-May-2007
The parties disputed whether oral statements had been incorporated into an option agreement.
Held: Evidence of negotiations before the written contract was signed were inadmissible, because it is only on the signing of the first document that . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 January 2021; Ref: scu.238560