The court looked at an allegation that there had been a total failure of consideration: ‘In my view the hardware did not have any significant value to SWW in itself (except for a minimal second hand value). Equally I am satisfied that the customer contact and workflow SRS did not have any intrinsic value to SWW which would prevent SWW claiming in restitution. In my view SWW did not get any part of that for which they paid the purchase money. They paid the purchase money for ICL to devise and install a computer system to conform to SWW’s URS. They did not receive any part of the Computer System. SWW did not contract in a vacuum to receive management know-how. They contracted to receive management services to enable the computer system to be delivered not as an end in itself.’
Judges:
HH Judge John Toulmin CMG QC
Citations:
Unreported, 29 June 1999, [1999] BLJ 420
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Astea (UK) Ltd v Time Group Ltd TCC 9-Apr-2003
The question of whether a reasonable time has been exceeded in performance of a contract is ‘a broad consideration, with the benefit of hindsight, and viewed from the time at which one party contends that a reasonable time for performance has been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract
Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.223525