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

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

656 bytes added , 24 November 2019

no edit summary

81,705

edits

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 :“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 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}}