HOME NEWS & VIEWS MEETINGS COMMITTEE LAW REPORTS CONTACT LONDON INSTITUTE
Legal Comment
by Peter
Horne
Comments On Recent Case Law
Lafarge v Newham (or "I give it to you today but you don't receive it until next Monday!)
In the last edition, I wrote about Lafarge Aggregates -v- LB Newham in which the contract included a term that notices were deemed to be served two working days after posting or hand delivery. Undoubtedly, the judgment did reflect the law - it is a proper interpretation of the words used - but (to paraphrase the Beadle) if that is what the law says then the law is a ass!
Just think about it. I come to your office on a Thursday afternoon and hand over an envelope. I say "this is the arbitration notice but, as today is Thursday, you will not receive it until next Monday!" Is it possible for the parties to agree on an arbitrator on the Thursday or Friday, even if, as the law suggest, the arbitration notice has not been served? Of course, if you are dotty enough to draft a clause which says that a notice delivered by hand will be received two working days later, then you deserve the criticism.
Bryen & Langley v Boston (Round two)
Just after the last edition of News & Views went to press, the Court of Appeal judgment appeared, overturning that of HHJ Richard Seymour. You may recall that this was all about letters of intent. I agreed with HHJ Seymour, (particularly as HHJ Anthony Thornton had come to the same conclusion over a very similar letter in Westminster Building Company -v- Andrew Beckingham) but also stated that this was inequitable.
I am not fully satisfied that the Court of Appeal is right in this case - I still think that the letter of intent was 'subject to contract'? but I am glad that the Court managed to right the wrong. If you continue for a considerable period leading the other party to the contract to believe that a certain state of affairs applies (eg that the contract is being carried out under certain terms) then you should not be able to plead otherwise (recognise equitable estoppel).
Peter Horne
Editor's note - I do not agree with all of Peter's analysis of the Bryen & Langley and Westminster cases, especially since HHJ Thornton came to the opposite conclusion to HHJ Seymour on very similar facts. My money was on Thornton being "righter" and I am glad that the Court of Appeal reversed Seymour's decision. But what do you think?