Inntrepreneur Pub Co v East Crown Ltd
Series: Estates Gazette ; [2000] 41 EG 209-214(6)Publication details: 2000Subject(s): Summary: ChD 28 July 2000. In October 1996 the claimant (E) let a public house to the defendant tenant (I) for a term of 30 years. The lease was subject to a beer tie under which I was obliged to purchase specified beers from E's nominated supplier. In August 1996 I had signed an agreement to take a lease that contained a clause expressing that the agreement constituted the entire agreement between the parties. The beer barrelage bought by I from the supplier dropped and by April 1998 no beer was bought. E commenced proceedings for breach of the beer tie. I counterclaimed that E had given a collateral warranty that the beer tie would be released from 28 March 1998. E denied any such warranty and relied upon the entire agreement clause of the August 1996 agreement. "Held" for E. The counterclaim was dismissed as there was no collateral warranty or promise, and E was entitled to an injunction restraining a breach of the tie.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS63042 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 108917-1001 |
ChD 28 July 2000. In October 1996 the claimant (E) let a public house to the defendant tenant (I) for a term of 30 years. The lease was subject to a beer tie under which I was obliged to purchase specified beers from E's nominated supplier. In August 1996 I had signed an agreement to take a lease that contained a clause expressing that the agreement constituted the entire agreement between the parties. The beer barrelage bought by I from the supplier dropped and by April 1998 no beer was bought. E commenced proceedings for breach of the beer tie. I counterclaimed that E had given a collateral warranty that the beer tie would be released from 28 March 1998. E denied any such warranty and relied upon the entire agreement clause of the August 1996 agreement. "Held" for E. The counterclaim was dismissed as there was no collateral warranty or promise, and E was entitled to an injunction restraining a breach of the tie.