Tesco v Constain - Thomson Reuters

More documents

Recommendations

Info

(1883) L.R. 22 Ch. D. 441 Page 51883 WL 19585 (CA)(Cite as: (1883) LR 22 Ch. D. 441)a limited company; and not only at the time when the action was brought, but atthe time of the trial there was no such company formed. Mr. Justice Kay took anundertaking from the Plaintiff that he would establish such a company; butsuppose he did not succeed in doing so, then the contract could not be performedand the Defendant might indeed put the Plaintiff into prison, but he could notget the decree worked out. I think that if the learned Judge had considered thisdifficulty he would not have made the decree in that form. Therefore thePlaintiff cannot maintain this decree for specific performance.*448 But that does not dispose of the whole case. Suppose the Defendant hadabsolutely refused to perform the contract, he would have waived his right toinsist upon the performance by the Plaintiff of the condition precedent, and laidhimself open to an action for damages. The Plaintiff may say in such a case I amnot to be put to the trouble of doing acts which will be useless by reason of theDefendant's refusal to perform the contract. Assuming that to be the case, thePlaintiff might maintain this action for damages although he could not getspecific performance. It is therefore necessary to see if there was any contractor not. I must say that it is near the line, but on careful consideration of thecorrespondence I have come to the conclusion that the letters amount only tonegotiation, and did not constitute a contract. In the first place I do notconsider that Hussey v. Horne-Payne [FN6] laid down any new law. It was alwaysheld that you might look at the whole of the correspondence, just as inconstruing a clause of a deed you let in the whole deed, and sometimes alsocontemporaneous deeds. If in all the letters taken together you see that theparties did not intend to make a contract, even though on two or three lettersthere appeared to be a contract, you would hold that on the whole correspondencethere was none.FN6 4 App. Cas. 311.[His Lordship then considered the correspondence and concluded as follows:--]On the whole I think the result is that there was no concluded agreement. Bothparties, in my opinion, intended that there should be a clear and formalagreement drawn up. It is for the Plaintiff to convince the Court that there is abinding agreement, and, in my opinion, he has not done so in this case. Theappeal must be allowed and the action dismissed with costs.COTTON, L.J.:--There are two questions for decision in this case. First whether the decree forspecific performance is right; and, secondly, whether there was an agreementbetween the parties. On the first point, the objection to this judgment is thatat the time when the action was brought the Plaintiff had not provided a nominee,*449 which was a condition precedent to the lease being granted. No doubt inactions for specific performance which arise between vendor and purchaser thereis an inquiry as to the title of the vendor after a decree has been made, and ifno title is shewn the action is then dismissed. But the regular form ofproceeding in that kind of action is by inquiry, and it stands on a differentfooting from actions like this, where the Plaintiff must shew that he has doneeverything that he is required to do before the action is brought. And, in myopinion, where there is a contract to grant a lease to a nominee of thePlaintiff, the Plaintiff must aver in his claim that he has appointed a nominee,and that the nominee is ready and willing to accept the lease.But that is not enough to dispose of this action, for if the Defendant haddistinctly refused to perform the contract, that would have dispensed with thenecessity for the Plaintiff to perform the conditions, and would have entitledthe Plaintiff to claim damages. Therefore we must go into the question whetherthere was an agreement or not. I agree that this is a very difficult question,but I am unable to see any letter from the Defendant which amounts to anacceptance of the terms offered by the Plaintiff.Copr. © West 2004 No Claim to Orig. Govt. Works
(1883) L.R. 22 Ch. D. 441 Page 61883 WL 19585 (CA)(Cite as: (1883) LR 22 Ch. D. 441)[His Lordship then reviewed the correspondence and concluded by saying that inhis opinion there was no agreement which could form the ground of an action.]BOWEN, L.J.:--I entirely agree.RepresentationSolicitors: Griffith Jones; Biale.(M. W.)(c) Incorporated Council of Law Reporting For England & WalesEND OF DOCUMENTCopr. © West 2004 No Claim to Orig. Govt. Works
Page 1 and 2:
2003 WL 21729349 Page 12003 WL 2172
Page 3 and 4:
2003 WL 21729349 Page 32003 WL 2172
Page 5 and 6:
2003 WL 21729349 Page 52003 WL 2172
Page 7 and 8:
2003 WL 21729349 Page 72003 WL 2172
Page 9 and 10:
2003 WL 21729349 Page 92003 WL 2172
Page 11 and 12:
2003 WL 21729349 Page 112003 WL 217
Page 13 and 14:
2003 WL 21729349 Page 132003 WL 217
Page 15 and 16:
2003 WL 21729349 Page 152003 WL 217
Page 17 and 18:
2003 WL 21729349 Page 172003 WL 217
Page 19 and 20:
2003 WL 21729349 Page 192003 WL 217
Page 21 and 22:
2003 WL 21729349 Page 212003 WL 217
Page 23 and 24:
2003 WL 21729349 Page 232003 WL 217
Page 25 and 26:
2003 WL 21729349 Page 252003 WL 217
Page 27 and 28:
2003 WL 21729349 Page 272003 WL 217
Page 29 and 30:
2003 WL 21729349 Page 292003 WL 217
Page 31 and 32:
2003 WL 21729349 Page 312003 WL 217
Page 33 and 34:
2003 WL 21729349 Page 332003 WL 217
Page 35 and 36:
2003 WL 21729349 Page 352003 WL 217
Page 37 and 38:
2003 WL 21729349 Page 372003 WL 217
Page 39 and 40:
2003 WL 21729349 Page 392003 WL 217
Page 41 and 42:
2003 WL 21729349 Page 412003 WL 217
Page 43 and 44:
2003 WL 21729349 Page 432003 WL 217
Page 45 and 46:
2003 WL 21729349 Page 452003 WL 217
Page 47 and 48:
2003 WL 21729349 Page 472003 WL 217
Page 49 and 50:
2003 WL 21729349 Page 492003 WL 217
Page 51 and 52:
2003 WL 21729349 Page 512003 WL 217
Page 53 and 54:
2003 WL 21729349 Page 532003 WL 217
Page 55 and 56:
2003 WL 21729349 Page 552003 WL 217
Page 57 and 58:
2003 WL 21729349 Page 572003 WL 217
Page 59 and 60:
2003 WL 21729349 Page 592003 WL 217
Page 61 and 62:
2003 WL 21729349 Page 612003 WL 217
Page 63 and 64:
2003 WL 21729349 Page 632003 WL 217
Page 65 and 66:
2003 WL 21729349 Page 652003 WL 217
Page 67 and 68:
2003 WL 21729349 Page 672003 WL 217
Page 69 and 70:
2003 WL 21729349 Page 692003 WL 217
Page 71 and 72:
2003 WL 21729349 Page 712003 WL 217
Page 73 and 74:
2003 WL 21729349 Page 732003 WL 217
Page 77 and 78:
2003 WL 21729349 Page 772003 WL 217
Page 79 and 80:
2003 WL 21729349 Page 792003 WL 217
Page 81 and 82:
2003 WL 21729349 Page 812003 WL 217
Page 83 and 84:
2003 WL 21729349 Page 832003 WL 217
Page 85 and 86:
2003 WL 21729349 Page 852003 WL 217
Page 87 and 88:
2003 WL 21729349 Page 872003 WL 217
Page 89 and 90:
2002 WL 347140 Page 12002 WL 347140
Page 91 and 92:
2002 WL 347140 Page 32002 WL 347140
Page 93 and 94:
2002 WL 347140 Page 52002 WL 347140
Page 95 and 96:
2002 WL 347140 Page 72002 WL 347140
Page 97 and 98:
2002 WL 347140 Page 92002 WL 347140
Page 99 and 100:
2002 WL 347140 Page 112002 WL 34714
Page 101 and 102:
2002 WL 347140 Page 132002 WL 34714
Page 103 and 104:
2002 WL 347140 Page 152002 WL 34714
Page 105 and 106:
2002 WL 347140 Page 172002 WL 34714
Page 107 and 108:
2002 WL 347140 Page 192002 WL 34714
Page 109 and 110:
2002 WL 347140 Page 212002 WL 34714
Page 111 and 112:
2002 WL 347140 Page 232002 WL 34714
Page 113 and 114:
2002 WL 347140 Page 252002 WL 34714
Page 115 and 116:
1990 S.L.T. 249 Page 11989 WL 98434
Page 117 and 118:
1990 S.L.T. 249 Page 31989 WL 98434
Page 119 and 120:
1990 S.L.T. 249 Page 51989 WL 98434
Page 121 and 122:
1990 S.L.T. 249 Page 71989 WL 98434
Page 123 and 124:
1984 S.L.T. 100 Page 21983 WL 21732
Page 125 and 126:
1984 S.L.T. 100 Page 41983 WL 21732
Page 127 and 128:
1984 S.L.T. 100 Page 61983 WL 21732
Page 129 and 130:
1984 S.L.T. 100 Page 81983 WL 21732
Page 131 and 132:
1984 S.L.T. 100 Page 101983 WL 2173
Page 133 and 134:
[1961] 1 Q.B. 31 Page 21960 WL 1892
Page 135 and 136: [1961] 1 Q.B. 31 Page 41960 WL 1892
Page 163 and 164: (1923) 16 Ll. L. Rep. 325 Page 2192
Page 165 and 166: [1912] 2 Ch. 125 Page 21912 WL 1739
Page 183 and 184: (1883) L.R. 22 Ch. D. 441 Page 2188
Page 185: (1883) L.R. 22 Ch. D. 441 Page 4188
Page 189 and 190: (1879-80) L.R. 5 Q.B.D. Page 21879
Page 191 and 192: (1879-80) L.R. 5 Q.B.D. Page 41879
Page 193 and 194: JBL 1987, Mar, 122-130 Page 1(Cite
show all

Tesco v Constain - Thomson Reuters

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?