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

no edit summary
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
No edit summary
Line 23: Line 23:


===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}}
{{sa}}
*[https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2016-0152.html Official judgment]
*[https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2016-0152.html Official judgment]
*{{Casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}} for similar curial nonsense.
*{{Casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}} for similar curial nonsense.
{{ref}}
{{ref}}