The Flying Music Company Ltd v Theater Entertainment SA & Ors

The Flying Music Company Ltd v Theater Entertainment SA & Ors

The contract was not frustrated as the civil unrest and its risks were already apparent and known to both parties at the time of contracting. The guarantee was supported by consideration as the claimant forbore from exercising its right to terminate performances. The guarantee was not voidable for duress as the pressure applied was lawful and not illegitimate. The counterclaim for unjust enrichment failed as the sums received were due under the contract and guarantee. The claimant was entitled to judgment for the sums claimed, save for certain disputed Rider expenses.

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
Civil (contract/commercial) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Frustration of Contract, Personal Guarantee, Duress, Consideration, Unjust Enrichment
Contract Law Commercial Law Frustration of Contract Personal Guarantee Duress Consideration 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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
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

Civil (contract/commercial) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract was frustrated by events 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 civil unrest and its risks were already apparent and known to both parties at the time of contracting. The guarantee was supported by consideration as the claimant forbore from exercising its right to terminate performances. The guarantee was not voidable for duress as the pressure applied was lawful and not illegitimate. The counterclaim for unjust enrichment failed as the sums received were due under the contract and guarantee. The claimant was entitled to judgment for the sums claimed, save for certain disputed Rider expenses.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment for the claimant in the sums claimed in the Updated Schedule of Loss, save for the disputed Rider expenses
  • Interest at the agreed rate from 22 June 2010