82,247
edits
Barclays v Unicredit: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
The trial judge held in broad terms that Barclays was entitled to take primary account of its own interests in determining whether to consent to termination. It had a reasonable expectation of 5 years' worth of premiums, and as it had sought the PV of those fees as a price for termination, it had acted commercially reasonably. | The trial judge held in broad terms that Barclays was entitled to take primary account of its own interests in determining whether to consent to termination. It had a reasonable expectation of 5 years' worth of premiums, and as it had sought the PV of those fees as a price for termination, it had acted commercially reasonably. | ||
===See also=== | |||
*[http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/302.html Judgment transcript] | |||
*''AP Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation'' [1947] 1 KB 223 | |||