Strydom v Vendside Ltd [2009] EWHC 2130 (QB) (18 August 2009)

Strydom v Vendside Ltd [2009] EWHC 2130 (QB) (18 August 2009)

The court held that the implied term contended for by the claimant was not necessary to give efficacy to the contract and was not within the scope of the defendant's admissions. The contract was not unconscionable as it was not oppressive in its terms, and the defendant's conduct did not meet the threshold for unconscionability. The limitation issue was decided in the claimant's favour, but did not affect the outcome.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 2130
Parties
Claimant (appellant): Brian Strydom; Defendant (respondent): Vendside Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / High Court Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Implied Terms, Unconscionable Bargain, Limitation, Misrepresentation
Contract Law Equity Implied Terms Unconscionable Bargain Limitation Misrepresentation

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

Parties

Brian Strydom

Claimant (appellant)

Vendside Limited

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / High Court Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a term should be implied into the contract requiring the defendant not to mislead the claimant as to costs or entitlement to fees
  2. 2 Whether the contract was an unconscionable bargain and should be set aside
  3. 3 Whether the claim was time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the implied term contended for by the claimant was not necessary to give efficacy to the contract and was not within the scope of the defendant's admissions. The contract was not unconscionable as it was not oppressive in its terms, and the defendant's conduct did not meet the threshold for unconscionability. The limitation issue was decided in the claimant's favour, but did not affect the outcome.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed