Scribd
Upload
12 views6 pages

Contract Law Cases

Uploaded by

c.kavindya96
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
12 views6 pages

Contract Law Cases

Uploaded by

c.kavindya96
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 6

Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Malaysian

Mining Corporation [1989]


■ A Malaysian company obtained a cash loan from merchant
bankers to fund its London-based subsidiary.

■ The Malaysian company issued ‘comfort letters’ to the bank,


stating it’s a policy to ensure that the subsidiary is in a
position to meet its liabilities.

■ The bank initially granted a £5 million facility and later


increased it to £10 million based on these letters.

■ After the subsidiary went into liquidation, the bank sought


repayment from the Malaysian company, which argued that
the letters were not intended to create legal obligations.
Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Malaysian
Mining Corporation [1989] cont..
Issue:
■ Whether the comfort letters were intended to create a legally binding
obligation for future payments.
Decision:
■ The Court determined that the letters did not constitute a contractual
promise. They were seen as statements of policy rather than legally
binding commitments.

■ The context and language of the letters indicated they were meant to
offer comfort rather than enforceable promises. Thus, the letters did
not create a legal obligation for future conduct.
Heilbut, Symons & Co. v Buckleton
[1913]
■ Heilbut, Symons & Co., merchants involved in the rubber
trade, made representations about underwriting shares in a
new rubber trading corporation, Filisola Rubber and Produce
Estates Ltd.

■ Buckleton, interested in purchasing shares, was persuaded by


these representations and made a significant investment.

■ The new company turned out to have fewer resources than


advertised, leading to poor performance.

■ Buckleton sued Heilbut et al for breach of warranty, arguing


that the representations implied a greater resource pool than
was actually available.
Heilbut, Symons & Co. v Buckleton
[1913]
Issue: cont..
■ Whether the statements made by Heilbut et al about the
company's resources were merely representations or
constituted a binding contractual promise.

Decision:

■ Initially, the court found that Heilbut et al had made an


innocent misrepresentation. On appeal, it was determined that
there was no fraudulent misrepresentation.
■ The court held that the remarks about resources did not amount
to a binding contractual promise, as there was no clear intent
for these statements to have contractual force beyond the
written agreement.
Rowland v. Divall (1923)

The plaintiff bought a car from the defendant, which


turned out to be stolen. After using the car for
several months, the plaintiff was forced to return it
to the true owner. The plaintiff sought to recover the
purchase price from the defendant.

Issue:
Whether the plaintiff could recover the full purchase
price paid due to the lack of title under Section
12(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979.
Rowland v. Divall (1923) cont..
Decision:

Judgment: The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a full refund of the purchase
price. The defendant had breached Section 12(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, which
implies that the seller must have the right to sell the goods.

Reasoning: The court determined that since the defendant had no title to the car, the
sale constituted a total failure of consideration. As a result, the plaintiff could recover the
entire purchase price, despite the car being used during the period of possession.

Legal Principle: Section 12(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979: This section implies a
condition that the seller has the right to sell the goods. If a seller lacks this right, the
buyer is entitled to a refund of the purchase price.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy