The Flying Music Company Ltd v Theater Entertainment SA & Ors [2017] EWHC 3192 (QB) (08 December 2017)

The Flying Music Company Ltd v Theater Entertainment SA & Ors [2017] EWHC 3192 (QB) (08 December 2017)

The contract was not frustrated as the unrest and its risks were already apparent at the time of contracting; the guarantee was supported by consideration as the claimant forbore from cancelling performances; the guarantee was not voidable for duress as the pressure applied was lawful and not improper; and the claimant was not unjustly enriched as all sums received were due under the contract or guarantee.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 3192
Parties
Claimant: The Flying Music Company Limited; First Defendant: Theater Entertainment SA; Second Defendant: Vanessa Adam; Third Defendant: Michail Adam
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Claim and Counterclaim / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed; counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Frustration of Contract, Personal Guarantee, Consideration, Duress, Unjust Enrichment
Contract Law Commercial Law Frustration of Contract Personal Guarantee Consideration Duress Unjust Enrichment

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

Parties

The Flying Music Company Limited

Claimant

Theater Entertainment SA

First Defendant

Vanessa Adam

Second Defendant

Michail Adam

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Claim and Counterclaim / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract was frustrated by civil unrest in Greece
  2. 2 Whether the personal guarantee was supported by consideration
  3. 3 Whether the guarantee was voidable for duress

Ratio Decidendi

The contract was not frustrated as the unrest and its risks were already apparent at the time of contracting; the guarantee was supported by consideration as the claimant forbore from cancelling performances; the guarantee was not voidable for duress as the pressure applied was lawful and not improper; and the claimant was not unjustly enriched as all sums received were due under the contract or guarantee.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment for the Claimant for the sums due under the contract and guarantee
  • Counterclaim for unjust enrichment dismissed