Petrotrade Inc v Texaco Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 512 (23 May 2000)

Petrotrade Inc v Texaco Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 512 (23 May 2000)

The contract terms set out in the 16 September telex were incorporated by a consistent course of dealing; SGS's determination was final and binding; Texaco had no real prospect of defending the claim or counterclaim; summary judgment was appropriate; enhanced interest and indemnity costs were discretionary and not mandated under Part 36.21 for summary judgment.

Citation
[2000] EWCA Civ 512
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Petrotrade Inc; Defendant/appellant: Texaco Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / Appeal From Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Cross-appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Course of Dealing, Contractual Terms Incorporation, Summary Judgment, Set Off Exclusion Clauses, Interest and Costs Under CPR Part 36
Commercial Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Course of Dealing Contractual Terms Incorporation Summary Judgment Set Off Exclusion Clauses Interest and Costs Under CPR Part 36

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Petrotrade Inc

Claimant/respondent

Texaco Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / Appeal From Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether contract terms were incorporated by course of dealing
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment was appropriate
  3. 3 Whether Texaco had a real prospect of defending the claim or counterclaim

Ratio Decidendi

The contract terms set out in the 16 September telex were incorporated by a consistent course of dealing; SGS's determination was final and binding; Texaco had no real prospect of defending the claim or counterclaim; summary judgment was appropriate; enhanced interest and indemnity costs were discretionary and not mandated under Part 36.21 for summary judgment.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Cross-appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Interest awarded at 4% above base rate for 12 months.
  • Respondents to receive half of the costs of both appeal and cross-appeal.