Archives
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- January 2010
- December 2008
Monthly Archives: February 2011
E-mail exchange creates a contract
E-mail exchange creates a contract
Case: Nicholas Prestige Homes v Neal
Summary: The Court of Appeal has confirmed that an exchange of e-mails can create a contract. An estate agent (Prestige) claimed it had sole selling rights for a property on the basis of the exchange. The seller (Neal) argued that a contract had not been created. She said she had not read the e-mail or the attachments and had not intended to instruct Prestige on a sole agency basis. The Court held that the exchange did create a contract. This case demonstrates the importance of understanding fully the consequences of communications by email. The fact that e-mails can be sent and responded to instantly means that parties often give themselves no time to reflect on the content of their communications. That leads to an increased risk of misunderstandings. It also demonstrates the manner in which the Courts will give effect to the plain meaning of the words used by the sender irrespective of the sender’s actual intention. A full note on this case can be found on our website. A full briefing note is at Nicholas Prestige Homes v Neal
Posted in News and Comment
Tagged contract, court of appeal, email exchange, property
Leave a comment
Court of Appeal confirms e-mail contract is binding.
Court of Appeal confirms e-mail contract is binding.
Case: Nicholas Prestige Homes v Neal [2010] EWCA Civ 1552
Summary: The Court of Appeal has handed down a judgement that should act as a warning to anyone replying to an e-mail from a supplier of goods or services. The case relates to a breach of contract where an estate agent (Prestige) was granted sole selling rights for a property by an e-mail from the seller (Neal). Please speak to Julian Johnstone, Head of Druces’ Property Litigation team for more information
De Facto Directors
De Facto Directors
Case: Holland v Revenue & Customs [2010]
Summary: A recent Supreme Court decision in Holland v Revenue and Customs (HMRC) [2010] has considered the status of de facto directors and, on a 3-2 split decision, limited the applicability of the concept. The decision is controversial because it will provide a defence in certain circumstances for persons controlling companies who are not officially directors of them against claims by liquidators and other parties interested in the winding up of those companies. In an article first published in The In-House Lawyer in February 2011, Julian Johnstone, head of Druces’ Litigation & Dispute Resolution team, examines the issues in detail
Relevant to: Insolvency practitioners, legal professionals, company directors and those involved in managing companies