- This topic has 18 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
- Posts
What did the court say about L’estrange v Graucob case. What was the conclusion, who won?
L’Estrange bought a cigarette machine but didn’t read the small print in the contract
When the machine broke down she tried to repudiate the contract but was unable to do so
This was in the days before Unfair Contract Terms legislation
Ok?
Yeah, alright. Can you answer my question posted below the lecture on contract law part 14.
The cases talked about are the construction of the swimming pool and a wall to block an undesirable site.
I agree that it wasn’t difficult work to ask the constructor to get the wall to the desired length. But in the case of the swimming pool, if they had increased the depth from above, the depth would have also increased of the part of the swimming pool which had the desired length of 1 meter. So I think it wasn’t fixable without starting all over again.Anyways did both parties get any compensation for their lost desirable lengths along with the reduced cost??
I put ‘Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth ‘ into Google and, if you do the same, you’ll find a brief summary about the case from Wikipedia
Let me know if that doesn’t answer your question
Ok?
Right, an award of £2500 for loss of amenity was liable. Got it 🙂
What is the difference between “During” and “Actual” breach or are they the same type of breach?
Pure economic loss refers to loss of income, value of property or amount of production caused by an outside party
It’s basically a monetary term and distinguishes the loss from physical harm suffered
Ok?
Not quite. Actual breach could be anticipatory … ie breach BEFORE the contract is due to start whereas breach during is obviously AFTER the commencement date
Ok?
The liquidator must repay debts in the following order.
Way down the line comes the unsecured creditors. It’s written that.Unsecured creditors – rank equally amongst themselves. The Enterprise Act 2002 introduced into the Insolvency Act 1986 a ring-fencing mechanism where part of assets which are subject to a floating charge are available to unsecured creditors. The amount ring-fenced is 50% of the first £10,000, plus 20% of the rest up to a maximum ring-fenced fund of £600,000.
What does this whole thing means, especially the last line??
This has nothing at all to do with L’Estrange v Graucob
When asking a question on a new topic, please start a new thread with an appropriate heading
Following the Enterprise Act / Insolvency Act, it is no longer the case that the unsecured creditors rank in total below the floating charge debenture holders
Consider the assets secured by way of floating charge
Now consider the first 10,000 of those assets
Only half of that first 10,000 will be attributable to the floating charge debenture holders. the other half will find its way to the unsecured creditors
Now consider the next 2,975,000. 20% of that value of the assets subject to a floating charge will be attributable to the unsecured creditors and only 80% attributable to the floating charge debenture holders
So the unsecured creditors will have attributable to them an amount of 5,000 + 595,000 = 600,000 where the assets subject to a floating charge exceed 2,985,000
OK?
(The course notes are out of date on this point)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.