Wright v Rowland & Anor

Wright v Rowland & Anor

There was no binding contract between the claimant and the defendants, as any discussions were informal, lacked necessary certainty, and were not intended to create legal relations without written documentation. The claim for quantum meruit also fails as there was no evidence of personal enrichment of the defendants and no reliable basis for valuing the services beyond remuneration already received.

Parties
Claimant: Michael Wright; First Defendant: David Rowland; Second Defendant: Jonathan Rowland
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Contract Formation, Oral Agreements, Quantum Meruit, Damages, Authority of Agents, Remuneration Agreements
Contract Law Unjust Enrichment Contract Formation Oral Agreements Quantum Meruit Damages Authority of Agents Remuneration Agreements

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Wright

Claimant

David Rowland

First Defendant

Jonathan Rowland

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a binding oral contract between the claimant and defendants in 2008 or on 20 July 2009
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to damages for breach of contract
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to a quantum meruit for services rendered

Ratio Decidendi

There was no binding contract between the claimant and the defendants, as any discussions were informal, lacked necessary certainty, and were not intended to create legal relations without written documentation. The claim for quantum meruit also fails as there was no evidence of personal enrichment of the defendants and no reliable basis for valuing the services beyond remuneration already received.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed