Dowman Imports Ltd v 2 Toobz Ltd (Rev 1)

Dowman Imports Ltd v 2 Toobz Ltd (Rev 1)

Dowman is entitled to restitution for the value of non-gratuitous development services provided at Toobz’s request in anticipation of a contract that was never concluded. Toobz was unjustly enriched by these services, and Dowman did not assume the risk of going unpaid. The sum claimed is justified and reasonable. Toobz’s counterclaim for defective goods fails as the initial order was a test run, not for resale, and no expert evidence supported the alleged defects.

Parties
Claimant: Dowman Imports Limited; Defendant: 2 Toobz Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim and Counterclaim / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed; counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Quantum Meruit, Unjust Enrichment, Counterclaim for Defective Goods
Commercial Law Contract Law Restitution Quantum Meruit Unjust Enrichment Counterclaim for Defective Goods

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dowman Imports Limited

Claimant

2 Toobz Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim and Counterclaim / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Dowman is entitled to restitution for development services provided to Toobz in anticipation of a contract that was never concluded
  2. 2 Whether Toobz was unjustly enriched by Dowman's services
  3. 3 Whether Dowman can recover for services performed by the Chinese factory (SJWG)

Ratio Decidendi

Dowman is entitled to restitution for the value of non-gratuitous development services provided at Toobz’s request in anticipation of a contract that was never concluded. Toobz was unjustly enriched by these services, and Dowman did not assume the risk of going unpaid. The sum claimed is justified and reasonable. Toobz’s counterclaim for defective goods fails as the initial order was a test run, not for resale, and no expert evidence supported the alleged defects.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Toobz to pay Dowman £144,450 (VAT inclusive) for restitution of development services
  • Counterclaim by Toobz dismissed