P & S Amusements Ltd v Valley House Leisure Ltd and Peter Alfred Valentine
Language: English Publication details: 2006Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2006] EWHC 1510 (Ch), 26 June 2006. Concerns an underlease restricting tenant V from purchasing beer from anyone other than a supplier nominated by landlord P, and where competition law was invoked in defence of V's breach of the beer tie covenant. V discovered that P was receiving discount payments on V's beer purchases from the nominated supplier, and so negotiated with the supplier to receive the discount payments instead of P. P then nominated another supplier, but V continued to purchase its beer from the original supplier. A judgment was made in P's favour that V was bound by a beer tie and was in breach of covenant. V raised competition law issues in its defence, saying that the beer tie was invalidated by Competition Act 1998 s2 and s18. "Held": V's case was fundamentally misconceived. An injunction and enquiry as to damages were granted to P.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 134174-1001 |
[2006] EWHC 1510 (Ch), 26 June 2006. Concerns an underlease restricting tenant V from purchasing beer from anyone other than a supplier nominated by landlord P, and where competition law was invoked in defence of V's breach of the beer tie covenant. V discovered that P was receiving discount payments on V's beer purchases from the nominated supplier, and so negotiated with the supplier to receive the discount payments instead of P. P then nominated another supplier, but V continued to purchase its beer from the original supplier. A judgment was made in P's favour that V was bound by a beer tie and was in breach of covenant. V raised competition law issues in its defence, saying that the beer tie was invalidated by Competition Act 1998 s2 and s18. "Held": V's case was fundamentally misconceived. An injunction and enquiry as to damages were granted to P.