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 08:02, 24 April 2020
, 24 April 2020no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
Lord Sumption ducked this one, by giving a bad decision on [[NOM]]s. | 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}} | {{sa}} | ||