Our phone lines are closed Monday 27th May. You can still place your order online as usual.

Gravy Solutions Ltd v Xyzmo Software

310 words (1 pages) Case Summary in Cases

07/03/18 Cases Reference this

Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our professional writers as a learning aid to help you with your studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Parallelewelten.net.

If you would like to view samples of the work produced by our academic writers please click here.

Gravy Solutions Ltd v Xyzmo Software GmbH [2013] EWHC 2770

Contracts – Freezing Injunctions – Privity of Contract -Oral Contracts – Measure of Damages

Facts:

Gravy sought to impose a freezing injunction against a company related to Xyzmo (called Z), after commission Gravy alleged to have earned was not paid and neither was the principal sum. An alleged implied contract had been formed between Xyzmo and Gravy, but  Xyzmo was a company without assets and had been formed overseas. No specific commission amount had been expressed, only a formula for which it could be calculated.

Issues:

Whether there has been an acknowledgement of Z’s obligations in relation to the relationship between Gravy and Xyzmo and whether a freezing injunction should be granted.

Held:

Gravy’s application was refused. The Court determined and interpreted the meaning of a contract to require the fundamental elements of offer, acceptance and intention to create legal relations between the parties signed to the contract. It was not usual for such a contract to be implied and any oral agreement required a demonstrable mutual acceptance of terms. Oral agreements could be legally enforceable but the terms of such an agreement needed to be agreed and understood by both parties. The invoice was evidence of a willingness of Z to pay Gravy, but it did state it was “voluntary and without prejudice” which limited its enforceability. Any injunction would not be against Xyzmo but against Z, which would interfere with the business relationship between Z and Xyzmo in respect of money paid to Xyzmo. Also, there was no evidence to suggest that Gravy would benefit from a proprietary claim, lest not entitled to one. As such, the injunction was not granted.

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

DMCA / Removal Request

If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the UK Essays website then please.

Current Offers