O – Oral contract
26/7/17
BLUE v ASHLEY [2017] EWHC 1928 (Comm)
Considers the test for proving an oral agreement [48] - [64] and the weakness of evidence based on memory [65]. On the facts no reasonable person would have considered that a conversation in a pub was serious and was intended to create a contract for payment of £15m.
11/3/15
CARLYLE v ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC [2015] UKSC 13
The Scots appeal court had been wrong to reverse the judgment of the trial judge which turned on factual findings that an oral agreement had been made by which the bank agreed to finance not only the purchase price of land but also the costs of developing it. The undisputed evidence was that the customer had asked the bank not to give him the money for the land unless it also gave him the money to build and the bank had subsequently told him “it’s all approved”. Although it would have been open to the trial judge to conclude this was only a decision in principle, he did not have to. Based on Scots authority, the fact that parties envisage that their agreement will be set out in a formal contract does not by itself prevent their agreement having legal effect until then. Subsequently signed facility letters only superseded the agreement so far as concerned the terms of the loan for the purchase.
17/5/13
JUMANI v MORTGAGE EXPRESS, Ch D
Receivers were appointed over a portfolio of buy-to-let properties under mortgages which gave the mortgagee the right to require all mortgages to be redeemed together rather than individually. The claimant alleged an oral agreement had been reached to allow him to pay off the arrears and have the receivers discharged on some properties. The claim failed. The alleged agreement would have varied the mortgage terms and was inherently improbable. On an objective analysis and applying commercial common sense, nothing discussed had been intended to give rise to a binding agreement.
21/12/12
FCL (LONDON) LTD v VOICE [2012] EWHC 3684 (QB) [29]-[31]
In deciding the terms of an oral or partly oral contract evidence of the parties’ subjective understanding is admissible as is evidence of things said or done after the contract.