Image from Google Jackets

Eyestorm Limited v Hoptonacre Homes Ltd [electronic resource]

Language: English Publication details: 2007Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2007] EWCA Civ 1366, 3 December 2007. Appellant company (E) appealed against the rejection of its claim for damages for breach of contract and return of a deposit paid to developers (H). Agreement created whereby E would purchase the leases to a block of flats from H if it was unable to sub-let them after an agreed time, hoping to sell at a profit. The relationship broke down; E was unable to sublet any of the properties and witheld monies in an attempt to re-negotiate the agreement. H eventually rescinded the agreement (after marketing the properties independently) and witheld the deposit paid by E as forfeit. E stated that H was in breach of contract for marketing the flats independently and that H had prevented E gaining access to the properties for valuation purposes. Held: appeal dismissed as there was no identifiable legal basis for asserting that the respondent was in breach of contract. Even if such a breach could have been established, it would not have caused the appellant loss.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Date due Barcode
Law report Virtual Online ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 144340-1001

[2007] EWCA Civ 1366, 3 December 2007. Appellant company (E) appealed against the rejection of its claim for damages for breach of contract and return of a deposit paid to developers (H). Agreement created whereby E would purchase the leases to a block of flats from H if it was unable to sub-let them after an agreed time, hoping to sell at a profit. The relationship broke down; E was unable to sublet any of the properties and witheld monies in an attempt to re-negotiate the agreement. H eventually rescinded the agreement (after marketing the properties independently) and witheld the deposit paid by E as forfeit. E stated that H was in breach of contract for marketing the flats independently and that H had prevented E gaining access to the properties for valuation purposes. Held: appeal dismissed as there was no identifiable legal basis for asserting that the respondent was in breach of contract. Even if such a breach could have been established, it would not have caused the appellant loss.