Linpac Plastics Ltd v Europlast H Mudder GmbH [2001] EWCA Civ 1804 (16 November 2001)

Linpac Plastics Ltd v Europlast H Mudder GmbH [2001] EWCA Civ 1804 (16 November 2001)

The Court held that the original 1997 distribution agreement between Linpac and Europlast remained in force, and the April 1998 variation was an administrative convenience, not a novation. Europlast remained the contractual purchaser for orders 17-26 and was liable for payment. There was no evidence of a new contract between Linpac and Eurofilm, nor of agency. The appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1804
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Linpac Plastics Ltd; Defendant/appellant: Europlast H Mudder GmbH
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Queen's Bench Division to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Distribution Agreements, Variation of Contract, Agency, Contractual Liability, Interpretation of Commercial Contracts
Contract Law Commercial Law Distribution Agreements Variation of Contract Agency Contractual Liability Interpretation of Commercial 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Linpac Plastics Ltd

Claimant/respondent

Europlast H Mudder GmbH

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Queen's Bench Division to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Europlast or Eurofilm was the contractual purchaser of goods under orders 17-26
  2. 2 Whether the original 1997 distribution agreement remained in force after the April 1998 variation
  3. 3 Whether the new ordering procedure constituted a novation or mere administrative convenience

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the original 1997 distribution agreement between Linpac and Europlast remained in force, and the April 1998 variation was an administrative convenience, not a novation. Europlast remained the contractual purchaser for orders 17-26 and was liable for payment. There was no evidence of a new contract between Linpac and Eurofilm, nor of agency. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant to pay Respondent's costs of the appeal and Respondent's Notice
  • Interim payment of £10,000 within 14 days