2019 Sourcing And Commercial Contracts Case Law Round Up

Welcome to this year's round up of key cases relevant to sourcing and commercial contracts.

Click on the headings below to read the full article.

In this issue

Triple Point Technology v PTT Public Company Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 230

10 December 2019

The Court of Appeal considered whether a clause conferring daily liquidated damages for delay applied to the particular factual circumstances and, if so, what event brought the liquidated damages to an end.

Continue reading Cargill International Trading Pte Ltd v Uttam Galva Steels Ltd [2019] EWHC 476 (Comm)

10 December 2019

In this summary judgment Cargill succeeded in arguing that an interest rate applicable to late payment did not operate as an unenforceable penalty.

Continue reading Sheikh Tahnoon v Ioannis Kent [2018] EWHC 333 (Comm)

10 December 2019

Last year a joint venture between friends was held to be subject to an implied duty of good faith. This duty, said the High Court, required the parties to work with greater mutual trust than would be the case for an ordinary contractual bargain. The parties were entitled to expect greater candour and co-operation than would be the case when contracting at arm's length.

Continue reading Bates v Post Office Ltd (no 3) [2019] EWHC 606 (QB)

10 December 2019

This year, in the high profile dispute between the Post Office and many of its sub-postmasters, Fraser J considered what characteristics might signify that a contract is "relational".

Continue reading New Balance Athletics Inc v The Liverpool Football Club and Athletic Grounds Limited [2019] EWHC 2837 (Comm)

10 December 2019

In a recent decision about good faith the court considered what "good faith" meant in the context of bidding for work.

Continue reading UTB LLC v Sheffield United

10 December 2019

An Investors and Shareholders agreement was not subject to an implied of good faith.

Continue reading New York Laser Clinic Limited v Naturastudios Limited [2019] EWHC 2892 (QB)

10 December 2019

This decision illustrates how a supplier or distributor can be liable to a customer even where the goods in question were bought by the customer from a third party. The distributor's exposure to the customer can be high in this scenario because, without a written contract with the customer, it lacks the protections commonly found in its standard terms and conditions of sale.

Continue reading BV Nederlandse Industrie Van Eiprodukten v...