Contract Formation By Email And Following Purchasing Procedures

Published date02 December 2020
Law FirmKemp IT Law
AuthorMs Noreen Ajmal

How the case of Athena Brands Ltd vs Superdrug reminds us of the pitfalls

For a binding contract, we know that English law requires certain key components - those being, an offer, acceptance, consideration, and an intention to create legal relations. We also know that legally binding contracts can be formed over email - which is a hugely convenient practice for many businesses. However, creating contracts by exchanging emails comes with pitfalls that can cause problems if company procedures are not followed properly. Particular care needs to be taken to avoid accidentally creating a contract that one party did not intend or entering one on unclear terms. The case of Athena vs Superdrug1 decided in December 2019, clearly shows the dangers of businesses failing to follow their purchasing procedures.

The case involved an exchange of emails between a Brand Manager of Athena and a representative of Superdrug with the job title "Buyer". The exchange of emails culminated in the Athena Brand Manager asking the Superdrug "Buyer" to confirm Superdrug was willing to commit to a 12 month supply of a new product range known as "Nature's Alchemist" in May 2017. The message sent read as follows:

"Just to confirm, you are placing orders and committing to the yearly quantity against all lines detailed below based on the ROS you have provided. We have agreed that you will call off stock, in exactly the same way as [different product] on an ad hoc basis within a 12 month period......

If you could drop me a note to confirm all the above ASAP that would be great. I shall then be in a position to push the button at this end...."

The Superdrug Buyer replied with an email saying, "Please go ahead with the below...".

However, after sales of the new products slowed, Superdrug stopped placing orders in February 2018. Athena claimed Superdrug was bound to order a full years' worth of stock.

Superdrug in turn argued that it was not under any such minimum commitment obligation because it had established purchase procedures in place that meant a purchase order had to be issued for there to be a binding commitment. It said that in the absence of a purchase order, there could not be a binding contract. It also argued, there had not been an...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT