Rock Advertising Ltd v MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Rock Advertising Ltd v MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd (view source)

Revision as of 11:55, 16 September 2021

8 bytes added , 16 September 2021

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{cn}}'''Headnote''': “[[Unless otherwise agreed in writing|Unless otherwise agreed ''in writing'']]” is not as meaningless as “[[unless otherwise agreed]]”.
-{{cite|Rock Advertising Limited|MWB Business Exchange Centres Limited|2018|UKSC|24}} ([https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2016-0152.html  transcript])
+{{cite|Rock Advertising Ltd|MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd|2018|UKSC|24}} ([https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2016-0152.html  transcript])
 In which the Supreme Court dealt unsatisfactorily with two basic issues one would like to think were well and truly settled law before now, getting one wrong (in your humble correspondent’s unworthy opinion) and deciding therefore that it did not need to answer the other. The issues were:
@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 Lord Sumption ducked this one, by giving a bad decision on [[NOM]]s.
-:“That makes it unnecessary to deal with consideration. It is also, I think, undesirable to do so.The issue is a difficult one. The only consideration which MWB can be said to have been given for accepting a less advantageous schedule of payments was (i) the prospect that the payments were more likely to be made if they were loaded onto the back end of the contract term, and (ii) the fact that MWB would be less likely to have the premises left vacant on its hands while it sought a new licensee. These were both expectations of practical value, but neither was a contractual entitlement.”
+:“That makes it unnecessary to deal with consideration. It is also, I think, undesirable to do so.The issue is a difficult one. The only consideration which MWB can be said to have been given for accepting a less advantageous schedule of payments was: (i) the prospect that the payments were more likely to be made if they were loaded onto the back end of the contract term, and (ii) the fact that MWB would be less likely to have the premises left vacant on its hands while it sought a new licensee. These were both expectations of practical value, but neither was a contractual entitlement.”
+===The [[JC]] says===
-===The JC says===
+The real problem here is that a counterparty was trying to reduce its contractual obligations for free. To be sure the consequences for the other party of not doing so may have been catastrophic, rock advertising may have failed all together) but however you look at it avoiding that outcome — which, absent this amendment, would amount to a [[breach of contract]], remember — by foregoing performance to which you are contractually entitled — is not consideration. It ''can’t'' be. The issue that isn’t “difficult”, but in getting it, the supreme court has wound up making a hash out of of an even more profound contractual concept.
-The real problem here is that a counterparty was trying to reduce its contractual obligations for free. To be sure the consequences for the other party of not doing so may have been catastrophic, rock advertising may have failed all together) but however you look at it avoiding that outcome — which, absent this amendment, would amount to a breach of contract, remember — by foregoing performance to which you are contractually entitled — is not consideration. It can't be. The issue that isn't “difficult”, but in getting it, the supreme court has wound up making a hash out of of an even more profound contractual concept.
 {{sa}}
 *[https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2016-0152.html Official judgment]
 *{{Casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}} for similar curial nonsense.
 {{ref}}