MacInnes v Gross

MacInnes v Gross

No binding contract was formed on 23 March 2011 because there was no intention to create legal relations, no agreement on essential terms, and the alleged agreement was too uncertain and complex. The claimant was not acting in a personal capacity and could not contract with the first defendant personally. The quantum meruit claim also fails as the services were not provided to the first defendant personally, and the claimed sum is unsupported by objective evidence.

Parties
Claimant: Bruce MacInnes; First Defendant: Hans Thomas Gross
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Contract Formation, Intention to Create Legal Relations, Quantum Meruit, Unjust Enrichment, Remuneration Agreements, Oral Contracts
Contract Law Unjust Enrichment Contract Formation Intention to Create Legal Relations Quantum Meruit Remuneration Agreements Oral Contracts

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bruce MacInnes

Claimant

Hans Thomas Gross

First Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a binding oral contract was formed between the claimant and the first defendant on 23 March 2011
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to remuneration under a quantum meruit claim against the first defendant

Ratio Decidendi

No binding contract was formed on 23 March 2011 because there was no intention to create legal relations, no agreement on essential terms, and the alleged agreement was too uncertain and complex. The claimant was not acting in a personal capacity and could not contract with the first defendant personally. The quantum meruit claim also fails as the services were not provided to the first defendant personally, and the claimed sum is unsupported by objective evidence.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment for the first defendant
  • Claimant's claims dismissed in full