BBF Consultancy Group (A Firm) v Barratt Homes Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1155 (12 July 2001)

BBF Consultancy Group (A Firm) v Barratt Homes Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1155 (12 July 2001)

The Court of Appeal held that the judge's finding of contract formation at the 29th June 1998 meeting was inconsistent with the subsequent correspondence and the absence of agreement on essential terms, particularly fees. The objective circumstances did not support the existence of a binding contract, and BBF's conduct and communications did not evidence a concluded agreement. Therefore, no contract was formed and BBF's claim failed.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1155
Parties
Claimant/respondent: BBF Consultancy Group (A Firm); Defendant/appellant: Barratt Homes Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Queen's Bench Division to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; claim dismissed; judgment for defendant.
Legal Topics
Formation of Contract, Objective Intention, Quantum Meruit, Architectural Services, Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982
Contract Law Formation of Contract Objective Intention Quantum Meruit Architectural Services Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982

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

Parties

BBF Consultancy Group (A Firm)

Claimant/respondent

Barratt Homes Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a binding contract was formed between BBF and Barratt on 29th June 1998 for architectural services
  2. 2 Whether the absence of agreement on fees precluded contract formation
  3. 3 Whether conduct and correspondence post-meeting evidenced a contract

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the judge's finding of contract formation at the 29th June 1998 meeting was inconsistent with the subsequent correspondence and the absence of agreement on essential terms, particularly fees. The objective circumstances did not support the existence of a binding contract, and BBF's conduct and communications did not evidence a concluded agreement. Therefore, no contract was formed and BBF's claim failed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; claim dismissed; judgment for defendant.

Orders

  • Order of 3rd March 2000 set aside
  • Claim dismissed