83,357
edits
Marine Trade v Pioneer: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
Marine Trade made the payment thinking it was probably not due. This is no mistake. While some level of doubt might be compatible with mistake, if a party makes a payment thinking that they were not liable (or, more likely than not, that they were not liable), there is no operative mistake. | Marine Trade made the payment thinking it was probably not due. This is no mistake. While some level of doubt might be compatible with mistake, if a party makes a payment thinking that they were not liable (or, more likely than not, that they were not liable), there is no operative mistake. | ||
===Permanence of Section 2(a)(iii)=== | |||
But would a payment, which was meant to have been due but was not because the Section {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}} [[conditions precedent]] were not satisfied, come back to life and be required if the defaulting party subsequently satisfied its Section 2(a)(iii) conditions? On Flaux J thought ''no'': the conditions were "once and for all" and if not satisfied on the day the payment was due, then the party would ''never'' have to make that payment. It was cancelled. | |||
This is ''mad''. After all, if an {{isdaprov|Early Termination Date}} is subsequently designated, any payments suspended under Section {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}} are considered when determining the Section {{isdaprov|6(e)}} {{isdaprov|Early Termination Amount}}. | |||
This nonsense was finally corrected in {{casenote|Lomas|Firth Rixson}} | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
{{2(a)(iii)}} | {{2(a)(iii)}} | ||