Vedatech Corporation v Crystal Decisions (UK) Limited: ChD 21 May 2002

The defendant wanted to amend its software and introduce it to the Japanese market, and worked with the claimants for this purpose. The defendant suggested that a concluded agreement existed, the claimant that only no contract was concluded. There were claims for copyright infringement, for an account of damages, and for enticing employees to breach their contracts.
Held: The terms proposed were too vague to constitute a contract. Nevertheless the parties had worked together. Agreements signed on the day that an employee left were not binding because no consideration had been given. The claim for procuring breach of the employees contracts is not made out. The claim for unjust enrichment was based upon profits made but or accounted for. It was intended that the services should be paid for, and they must be. A further assessment will be required to assess how much.
The Honourable Mr Justice Jacob
[2002] EWHC 818 (Ch)
England and Wales
CitedBanque Financiere De La Cite v Parc (Battersea) Ltd and Others HL 16-Apr-1998
The making of an order for restitution after finding an unjust enrichment by subrogation, is not dependant upon having found any common or unilateral intention of the parties. The House distinguished between contractual subrogation of the kind most . .
CitedWay v Latilla HL 1937
Mr Way (W), the plaintiff, was employed by Ariston, which had mining operations in Africa, as a consulting engineer and manager. He met the respondent (L) in England. He was asked to seek options to acquire concessions the respondent might acquire. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 March 2021; Ref: scu.171279