header-logo header-logo

17 April 2008
Issue: 7317 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Contract

M & J Polymers Ltd v Imerys Minerals Ltd [2008] EWHC 344 (Comm), [2008] All ER (D) 445 (Feb)

As a matter of principle, the rule against  penalties might apply to a “take or pay” clause. It is not, however, the ordinary candidate for the rule (which applies where, for example, a sum specified was not a genuine pre-estimate of damage).

The rule against penalties does not apply where there was no oppression, as where the term was commercially justifiable, was negotiated and freely entered into between parties of comparable bargaining power, and did not have the predominant purpose of deterring a breach of contract.

Issue: 7317 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carpmaels & Ransford—Kevin Cordina

Carpmaels & Ransford—Kevin Cordina

Firm adds former Simmons Simmons patent head to engineering and tech team

ACTAPS—Sally Goodger

ACTAPS—Sally Goodger

Freeths strengthens its voice in national disputes with ACTAPS committee appointment

Pillsbury—Matthew Sperry

Pillsbury—Matthew Sperry

Pillsbury expands private client and family office platform with Cadwalader partner hire

NEWS
Some employment law controversies never disappear—they merely lie dormant
Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming legal practice, but its successful adoption depends as much on culture as technology
The fallout from Lord Mandelson’s appointment and dismissal as UK ambassador to Washington raises profound questions about constitutional governance, accountability and political appointments
Pastries may be in the firing line while kebabs escape scrutiny, but the reality is far more nuanced
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dillon highlights a central tension in modern public law: rights may be recognised without being fully realised
back-to-top-scroll