82,891
edits
Rock Advertising Ltd v MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Rock Advertising Ltd v MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd (view source)
Revision as of 11:19, 17 July 2019
, 17 July 2019no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Headnote''': “[[Unless otherwise agreed in writing|Unless otherwise agreed ''in writing'']]” is not as meaningless as “[[unless otherwise agreed]]”. | {{g}}'''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|UKSC24}} ([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: | 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 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.” | :“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.” | ||
{{ | {{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}} | ||