CASE ANALYSIS: BREACH OF CONTRACT
1. Facts the Client will need to prove in order for its claim to succeed.
Existence of a Contract
We need to prove that Leisure Hotels Group Limited (“LH”) and Top Refreshments
Limited (“TRL”) entered into an oral contract dated 1 May 2019 (“the Contract”) over
the telephone between Simon bird on behalf of LH and Tom Tipley on belhalf of TRL.
Express Terms of the Contract
LH will need to prove that TRL agreed to manufacture supply LH with 5 vending
machines dispensing cold drinks (“the Vending Machines”) for LH’s chain of hotels
(70 in total) by Summer 2019 for consideration of £175,000, payable by LH on
delivery of the last Vending Machine.
(inclusive of VAT??)
Implied Terms of the Contract
LH will need to prove that it was an implied term of the Contract that LH would carry
out the services of manufacturing and delivering the Vending Machines and they
would be of a satisfactory quality. Further, that it was an implied term that the
Vending Machines would be of satisfactory quality and correspond with its
description.
Breach of the Contract
LH will need to prove that there was a failure by TRL, to supply the Vending
Machines with a satisfactory quality.
Specifically, LH will need to prove that TRL inadequately manufactured and that TRL
handled the Vending Machines carelessly.
Consequences of Breach (Establish Causal link between the Breach and the
Damage/Loss)
LH will need to prove that [as a result of TRL’s breach] the Vending Machines were
noisy and caused the temperature of the drinks/contents to be faulty (i.e., too warm
or too cold).
Loss and Damage
LH will need to prove that [as a result of TRL’s breach] LH has suffered a
considerable loss of profit.
Paid TRL = £175,000
Paid SKL = £195,000
Total = £370,000
Remoteness
LH will need to prove that at the time the Contract was made the loss was a natural
consequence of the breach or else in TRL’s reasonable contemplation.
2. [For each point to be proved] Supporting evidence currently in our
hands.
Existence of a Contract
, Simon Bird describes the formation of a contract in his telephone call with Tom
Tipley on 1 May 2019.
Express Terms of the Contract
Simon Bird’s Proof of Evidence shows that TRL agreed to manufacture and deliver
the Vending Machines in return for a payment by LH of £175,000.
Implied Terms of the Contract
Simon Bird’s Proof of Evidence shows that TRL was a company specialising in
vending machines which dispense cold drinks. Their attendance at a hotel and
catering trade fair held at the Belfry Hotel, 4 March 2019, shows that the agreement
with LH to manufacture and delivery the Vending Machines was made in the course
of TRL’s business.
As TRL made the Contract to manufacture and deliver the Vending Machine in the
course of its business, a term requiring the goods supplied to be of a satisfactory
quality was implied into the Contract by Section 4(2) of the Supply of Goods and
Services Act 1982.
Breach of the Contract
Simon Bird’s Proof of Evidence [by way of reporting comments made from
Customers] that TRL did not exercise supply goods which were of a satisfactory
quality as [the Customers complained that] the drinks were too cold/too warm and
the Vending Machines were noisy.
The Complaints Register, Monday 8 July 2019 (Document B) shows that TRL did not
supply the Vending Machines which were of a satisfactory quality, as the complaints
state that the Vending Machines were “intermittently noisy”.
The Complaints Register, Monday 8 July 2019 (Document B) shows that TRL did not
supply the Vending Machines which were of a satisfactory quality, as the complaints
state that the Vending Machines were “too noisy”.
The Complaints Register, Monday 8 July 2019 (Document B) shows that TRL did not
supply the Vending Machines which were of a satisfactory quality, as the complaints
state that the drinks/contents were “too cold”.
The Complaints Register, Monday 8 July 2019 (Document B) shows that TRL did not
supply the Vending Machines which were of a satisfactory quality, as the complaints
state that the drinks/contents were “warm”.
Richard Gordons Email (Document D) states that the Inspection result as recorded
on DVD indicated that the Vending Machines were “noisy”.
Richard Gordons Email (Document D) states that the Inspection result as recorded
on DVD indicated that the drinks were “too cold” or “warm”.
Peter Brown’s Expert Report to confirm whether it was the production process at
TRL or with LH’s installation and maintenance.
1. Facts the Client will need to prove in order for its claim to succeed.
Existence of a Contract
We need to prove that Leisure Hotels Group Limited (“LH”) and Top Refreshments
Limited (“TRL”) entered into an oral contract dated 1 May 2019 (“the Contract”) over
the telephone between Simon bird on behalf of LH and Tom Tipley on belhalf of TRL.
Express Terms of the Contract
LH will need to prove that TRL agreed to manufacture supply LH with 5 vending
machines dispensing cold drinks (“the Vending Machines”) for LH’s chain of hotels
(70 in total) by Summer 2019 for consideration of £175,000, payable by LH on
delivery of the last Vending Machine.
(inclusive of VAT??)
Implied Terms of the Contract
LH will need to prove that it was an implied term of the Contract that LH would carry
out the services of manufacturing and delivering the Vending Machines and they
would be of a satisfactory quality. Further, that it was an implied term that the
Vending Machines would be of satisfactory quality and correspond with its
description.
Breach of the Contract
LH will need to prove that there was a failure by TRL, to supply the Vending
Machines with a satisfactory quality.
Specifically, LH will need to prove that TRL inadequately manufactured and that TRL
handled the Vending Machines carelessly.
Consequences of Breach (Establish Causal link between the Breach and the
Damage/Loss)
LH will need to prove that [as a result of TRL’s breach] the Vending Machines were
noisy and caused the temperature of the drinks/contents to be faulty (i.e., too warm
or too cold).
Loss and Damage
LH will need to prove that [as a result of TRL’s breach] LH has suffered a
considerable loss of profit.
Paid TRL = £175,000
Paid SKL = £195,000
Total = £370,000
Remoteness
LH will need to prove that at the time the Contract was made the loss was a natural
consequence of the breach or else in TRL’s reasonable contemplation.
2. [For each point to be proved] Supporting evidence currently in our
hands.
Existence of a Contract
, Simon Bird describes the formation of a contract in his telephone call with Tom
Tipley on 1 May 2019.
Express Terms of the Contract
Simon Bird’s Proof of Evidence shows that TRL agreed to manufacture and deliver
the Vending Machines in return for a payment by LH of £175,000.
Implied Terms of the Contract
Simon Bird’s Proof of Evidence shows that TRL was a company specialising in
vending machines which dispense cold drinks. Their attendance at a hotel and
catering trade fair held at the Belfry Hotel, 4 March 2019, shows that the agreement
with LH to manufacture and delivery the Vending Machines was made in the course
of TRL’s business.
As TRL made the Contract to manufacture and deliver the Vending Machine in the
course of its business, a term requiring the goods supplied to be of a satisfactory
quality was implied into the Contract by Section 4(2) of the Supply of Goods and
Services Act 1982.
Breach of the Contract
Simon Bird’s Proof of Evidence [by way of reporting comments made from
Customers] that TRL did not exercise supply goods which were of a satisfactory
quality as [the Customers complained that] the drinks were too cold/too warm and
the Vending Machines were noisy.
The Complaints Register, Monday 8 July 2019 (Document B) shows that TRL did not
supply the Vending Machines which were of a satisfactory quality, as the complaints
state that the Vending Machines were “intermittently noisy”.
The Complaints Register, Monday 8 July 2019 (Document B) shows that TRL did not
supply the Vending Machines which were of a satisfactory quality, as the complaints
state that the Vending Machines were “too noisy”.
The Complaints Register, Monday 8 July 2019 (Document B) shows that TRL did not
supply the Vending Machines which were of a satisfactory quality, as the complaints
state that the drinks/contents were “too cold”.
The Complaints Register, Monday 8 July 2019 (Document B) shows that TRL did not
supply the Vending Machines which were of a satisfactory quality, as the complaints
state that the drinks/contents were “warm”.
Richard Gordons Email (Document D) states that the Inspection result as recorded
on DVD indicated that the Vending Machines were “noisy”.
Richard Gordons Email (Document D) states that the Inspection result as recorded
on DVD indicated that the drinks were “too cold” or “warm”.
Peter Brown’s Expert Report to confirm whether it was the production process at
TRL or with LH’s installation and maintenance.
