Image from Google Jackets

Walford v others v Miles and another

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1990) 12 EG 107-111(3)Publication details: 1990Subject(s): Summary: QBD 21 July 1989. This litigation arose from a decision of the defendants (M) to sell a photographic processing business which had been transferred to a company whose shares they owned. After abortive negotiations the plaintiffs (W) and a rival bidder became interested in its purchase. The rival was in fact the first in the field and was finally the successful purchaser. W claimed that M had failed to break off negotiations with the rival before opening with him and was therefore in breach of their collateral agreement and claimed for loss of opportunity to purchase. The judge held that there had been an oral agreement subject to contract for W to purchase the property and shares for £2m supported by a collateral agreement demonstrating W`s intention to enter into binding legal relations. Under this W agreed to get a comfort letter from their bank and M to call off any other negotiations. He also held that promises made by M were misrepresentations which W relied on to their detrimen
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS42436 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 36789-1001

QBD 21 July 1989. This litigation arose from a decision of the defendants (M) to sell a photographic processing business which had been transferred to a company whose shares they owned. After abortive negotiations the plaintiffs (W) and a rival bidder became interested in its purchase. The rival was in fact the first in the field and was finally the successful purchaser. W claimed that M had failed to break off negotiations with the rival before opening with him and was therefore in breach of their collateral agreement and claimed for loss of opportunity to purchase. The judge held that there had been an oral agreement subject to contract for W to purchase the property and shares for £2m supported by a collateral agreement demonstrating W`s intention to enter into binding legal relations. Under this W agreed to get a comfort letter from their bank and M to call off any other negotiations. He also held that promises made by M were misrepresentations which W relied on to their detrimen