P & S Amusements Ltd v Valley House Leisure Ltd & Anor [2007] EWHC 1494 (Ch) (22 June 2007)

P & S Amusements Ltd v Valley House Leisure Ltd & Anor [2007] EWHC 1494 (Ch) (22 June 2007)

The alleged implied terms preventing the tenant from negotiating or receiving rebates from nominated suppliers are not to be implied into the underlease, as the contract was effective without them, they were not so obvious as to go without saying, and were not reasonable or equitable. The claimants' claim for damages post-February 2006 fails as it depended on the existence of such implied terms.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 1494 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: P & S Amusements Ltd; First Defendant: Valley House Leisure Ltd; Second Defendant: Peter Alfred Valentine
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Commercial Lease Dispute / Judgment Following Trial on Liability and Damages, Including Post February 2006 Claim
Outcome
Claim for implied terms and post-February 2006 damages dismissed; damages for pre-February 2006 period to be assessed per findings.
Legal Topics
Implied Terms, Beer Tie, Damages, Estoppel, Waiver, Commercial Leases
Contract Law Landlord and Tenant Law Implied Terms Beer Tie Damages Estoppel Waiver Commercial Leases

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 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P & S Amusements Ltd

Claimant

Valley House Leisure Ltd

First Defendant

Peter Alfred Valentine

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Commercial Lease Dispute / Judgment Following Trial on Liability and Damages, Including Post February 2006 Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether implied terms should be incorporated into the underlease preventing the tenant from negotiating or receiving rebates from nominated suppliers; Whether the claimants are entitled to damages for breach of the beer-tie post-February 2006; Whether the claimants are estopped or have waived their rights to rely on the alleged implied terms; Method of calculating damages for breach of beer-tie; Whether claimants can recover rebates for Budweiser lager.

Ratio Decidendi

The alleged implied terms preventing the tenant from negotiating or receiving rebates from nominated suppliers are not to be implied into the underlease, as the contract was effective without them, they were not so obvious as to go without saying, and were not reasonable or equitable. The claimants' claim for damages post-February 2006 fails as it depended on the existence of such implied terms.

Court Disposition

Claim for implied terms and post-February 2006 damages dismissed; damages for pre-February 2006 period to be assessed per findings.

Orders

  • Claim for damages post-February 2006 dismissed.
  • Damages for breach of beer-tie from November 2002 to February 2006 to be assessed as per judgment.