82,976
edits
Mercury Tax Group Limited v HMRC: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
The claimants pointed to extraneous correspondence that indicated that the client knew about and acceded to the variations, such that it implicitly, if not expressly, authorised those changes, and failing that that the changes were, from the customer’s point of view, immaterial. | The claimants pointed to extraneous correspondence that indicated that the client knew about and acceded to the variations, such that it implicitly, if not expressly, authorised those changes, and failing that that the changes were, from the customer’s point of view, immaterial. | ||
{{quote|“He referred me to the decision of the Court of Appeal in {{cite|Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich AG|Crossseas Shipping Ltd|2001|1 WLR 1135}}, which he said was authority for the proposition that in the case of written contracts an alteration to the contract after signature did not invalidate it unless it was material in the sense of being ‘potentially prejudicial to the legal rights or obligations of the affected party’: that, he said, was plainly not the case here.”}} | {{quote|“He referred me to the decision of the Court of Appeal in {{cite|Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich AG|Crossseas Shipping Ltd|2001|1 WLR|1135}}, which he said was authority for the proposition that in the case of written contracts an alteration to the contract after signature did not invalidate it unless it was material in the sense of being ‘potentially prejudicial to the legal rights or obligations of the affected party’: that, he said, was plainly not the case here.”}} | ||
The court was having none of it. | The court, alas for the tax dodgers, was having none of it. | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||