The appellant entered into two aircraft leasing agreements but were unable to maintain payments. They appealed against rejection of their argument that the agreements were not exempt from the controls under the 1977 Act by being international supply agreements.
Held: The appeal failed. The intention of section 26 was to exclude such agreements entirely from control, and the section could be satisfactorily construed to do this: ‘although the aircraft were to be delivered to the lessee in this country, both parties were well aware that they were being leased by First Flight for use in their business and were to be taken to India for that purpose. If, therefore, as its language suggests, subsection (4)(a) is not limited to contracts under which goods must be carried across national boundaries in order to fulfil a contractual obligation, a contract of this kind must fall within it.’
Lord Justice Waller, Lady Justice Arden and Lord Justice Moore-Bick
[2009] EWCA Civ 290
Bailii, Times
Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 26, Misrepresentation Act 1967 3
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal From – Trident Turboprop (Dublin) Ltd v First Flight Couriers Ltd Comc 17-Jul-2008
Trident entered into Aircraft Operating Lease Agreements in identical terms with First Flight in respect of two ATP model aircraft. The leases represented the culmination of negotiations between a representative of the manufacturer, BAE Systems . .
Cited – Premium Nafta Products Ltd (20th Defendant) and others v Fili Shipping Company Ltd and others; Fiona Trust and Holding Corporation v Privalov HL 17-Oct-2007
The owners of a ship sought to rescind charters saying that they had been procured by bribery.
Held: A claim to rescind a contract by reason of bribery fell within the scope of an arbitration clause under which the parties had agreed to refer . .
Cited – Handelskwekerij GJ Bier Bv v Mines De Potasse D’Alsace Sa ECJ 30-Nov-1976
Europa Where the place of the happening of the event which may give rise to liability in tort, delict or quasi-delict and the place where that event results in damage are not identical, the expression ‘place . .
Cited – Alfred Dunhill Ltd v Diffusion Internationale De Maroquinerie De Prestige Sarl QBD 1-Feb-2001
The words of Article 5(3) are to be given an autonomous meaning and are not to be interpreted by reference to the definition of a cause of action under the particular national law concerned. . .
Cited – Sunderland Marine Mutual Insurance Company Ltd v Wiseman and others ComC 22-Jun-2007
The parties disputed as to whether the claim should be tried in England or Scotland. . .
Cited – Dolphin Maritime and Aviation Services Ltd v Sveriges Angartygs Assurans Forening ComC 2-Apr-2009
The defendant sought to strike out the claim for want of jurisdiction and that it had no prospect of success. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Consumer, Contract
Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.329548