Facts The plaintiff, Beoco Ltd., purchased a second-hand plate heat exchanger from the first defendant, Alfa Laval Co Ltd., for use in their lard production process. Alfa Laval had previously acquired the machine from the second defendants, J.M.L. Realisations Ltd. The sale from Alfa Laval to Beoco was on an ‘as seen’ basis. During pre-contractual negotiations, Alfa Laval provided Beoco with service records for the machine which they had received from J.M.L. These records were incomplete and omitted a crucial report about a hazardous pressure test conducted in 1983 which had revealed defects. After installation, the machine exploded, causing significant
Facts Lever Brothers Ltd (Appellants) held a controlling interest in the Niger Company. Mr Bell and Mr Snelling (Respondents) were appointed as chairman and vice-chairman, respectively, of the Niger Company under five-year service contracts. As part of a corporate restructuring, Lever Brothers decided to terminate these appointments prematurely. They entered into compensation agreements with Bell and Snelling, paying them £30,000 and £20,000 respectively, in consideration for the early termination of their service contracts. Subsequent to these payments, Lever Brothers discovered that both Bell and Snelling had, during their employment, committed serious breaches of their duties as directors. They had secretly
Facts Mr Barton was the managing director of a company, and Mr Armstrong was its chairman. Following a power struggle, Barton agreed to buy Armstrong’s shares in the company through the execution of several deeds. Barton subsequently sought a declaration that these deeds were void, alleging that he had been coerced into signing them by Armstrong’s threats to have him murdered. The trial judge found that Armstrong had indeed made death threats and that Barton had taken them seriously. However, the trial judge also found that Barton had entered into the agreement for what were considered sound business reasons, primarily
Facts Mr. and Mrs. O’Brien were joint owners of their matrimonial home. Mr. O’Brien’s company, in which Mrs. O’Brien had no interest, required an increased overdraft facility from Barclays Bank. The bank agreed, on the condition that it was secured by a second charge over the O’Briens’ home. Mr. O’Brien misrepresented the nature of the transaction to his wife, falsely stating that the security was limited to £60,000 and would be released within three weeks. In reality, the charge was unlimited in amount and duration, securing all liabilities of the company, which eventually reached £154,000. Bank staff were instructed to
Facts Barclays Bank Plc (the Bank) employed Fairclough Building Ltd (Fairclough) under a contract to clean and repair the asbestos roofs of two housing estates. Fairclough sub-contracted the work to another specialist firm. The work was performed defectively, leading to significant asbestos contamination of the properties. The Bank was forced to evacuate residents and engage a different contractor to carry out extensive decontamination works at a cost of nearly £4 million. The Bank sued Fairclough for breach of contract to recover these costs. Fairclough admitted it had breached its contractual obligations but contended that the Bank’s damages should be reduced
Facts The appellants (Bank Line, Ltd, “the charterers”) entered into a time charter-party with the respondents (Arthur Capel & Co, “the owners”) on 16th February 1915 for the steamship *Quito*. The charter was for a period of twelve months, commencing upon delivery of the vessel at a coal port in the UK. The charter-party stipulated that the vessel was to be delivered by 30th April 1915, and provided the charterers with an option to cancel the contract if she was not delivered by this date (clause 26). The contract also contained a standard exception for “restraint of Princes, Rulers or
Facts The appellants, Waterlow & Sons Ltd, were a firm of printers who held a contract with the respondent, the Bank of Portugal, for the exclusive printing of 500-escudo banknotes. A criminal mastermind, Marang, pretending to be an authorised agent of the Bank, deceived Waterlow into printing 580,000 additional banknotes of the same design. These unauthorised notes were physically indistinguishable from the genuine ones. Marang and his confederates successfully introduced these notes into circulation in Portugal, causing a significant inflation of the currency and a crisis of confidence in the nation’s monetary system. Faced with this crisis, the Bank of
Facts The appellant, Mr. Attwood, agreed to sell his extensive ironworks and coal mines at Corngreaves, Staffordshire, to the respondents, John Small and others, for the sum of £600,000. During the negotiations, Attwood made various statements and representations concerning the property’s costs, output, and earning capacity. The prospective purchasers (the respondents), being cautious, did not rely solely on these statements. Instead, they appointed their own team of experienced agents, surveyors, and accountants to conduct a thorough investigation and verification of Attwood’s claims. These agents spent several months on-site, examining the accounts, inspecting the mines and machinery, and interrogating the workforce.
Facts Kafco (Importers and Distributors) Ltd, a small company importing basketware, secured a major contract to supply goods to Woolworths plc. They engaged Atlas Express Ltd, a national road carrier, to handle the distribution to Woolworths’ retail outlets. An Atlas manager inspected Kafco’s goods and, based on a visual assessment, quoted a carriage rate of £1.10 per carton, anticipating that each of Atlas’s trailers could hold between 400 and 600 cartons. A contract was concluded on this basis. However, after the first collection, the Atlas driver discovered that due to their size, only 200 cartons could fit onto a trailer.
Facts The appellants, Arcos, Limited (‘the sellers’), entered into a contract to sell a quantity of Russian redwood and whitewood staves to the respondents, W. N. Ronaasen & Son (‘the buyers’), for the purpose of making cement barrels. The contract specified, amongst other dimensions, that the staves were to be of “1/2 an inch” thickness. Upon delivery, the buyers measured the staves and discovered that while they corresponded with the contract in other respects, a significant proportion did not conform to the specified thickness. Only around 5% of the staves were precisely 1/2 inch thick; the vast majority (over 80%)
