Crowther v Arbuthnot Latham & Co Ltd: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 11: Line 11:
Crowther argued that “reasonableness” in this case could only be determined by reference to the proposed sale price: if it was a fair market value, and nothing else was likely to happen to materially affect the property’s value between the sale and maturity of the loan, Arbuthnot could not reasonably withhold consent.  
Crowther argued that “reasonableness” in this case could only be determined by reference to the proposed sale price: if it was a fair market value, and nothing else was likely to happen to materially affect the property’s value between the sale and maturity of the loan, Arbuthnot could not reasonably withhold consent.  


Arbuthnot said (per {{casenote|Barclays|Unicredit}}) it was seeking to protect its own commercial interests: if they had thought their loan would be unsecured to the tune of 1.7m, they would have asked for a bigger spread on the interest.  
Arbuthnot said (per {{casenote|Barclays|Unicredit}}) it was seeking to protect its own commercial interests: if they had thought their loan would be unsecured to the tune of 1.7m, they would have not have made it without asking for a bigger spread on the interest.  


The problem with this argument was that this is exactly what Arbuthnot ''had'' done: By common agreement the property was never worth more than £4m, even when Arbuthnot advanced the loan. {{t|Schoolboy error}} from the private bankers here. Nor did Arbuthnot have any evidence that the property value had slumped, nor that there was much sign it was likely to rally.
The problem with this argument was that this is exactly what Arbuthnot ''had'' done: By common agreement the property was never worth more than £4m, even when Arbuthnot advanced the loan. {{t|Schoolboy error}} from the private bankers here. Nor did Arbuthnot have any evidence that the property value had slumped, nor that there was much sign it was likely to rally.