P & S Amusements Ltd v Valley House Leisure Ltd & Anor

P & S Amusements Ltd v Valley House Leisure Ltd & Anor

The underlease did not contain the alleged implied terms restricting tenants from negotiating rebates with nominated suppliers. The contract was effective without such terms, they were not obvious or reasonable, and the claimants suffered no recoverable loss as suppliers would have paid all rebates to the tenants regardless. Claimants are only entitled to nominal damages for the relevant period. Claims for Budweiser sales are excluded due to a prior release from the beer-tie.

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
Civil (contract/lease/commercial) / Judgment After Trial on Liability and Quantum
Outcome
Claim dismissed except for nominal damages
Legal Topics
Implied Terms, Damages for Breach of Contract, Beer Tie Arrangements, Estoppel, Waiver, Nomination of Suppliers, Competition Law (struck Out)
Contract Law Landlord and Tenant Law Commercial Law Implied Terms Damages for Breach of Contract Beer Tie Arrangements Estoppel Waiver +2 more

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

Parties

P & S Amusements Ltd

Claimant

Valley House Leisure Ltd

First Defendant

Peter Alfred Valentine

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (contract/lease/commercial) / Judgment After Trial on Liability and Quantum

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether implied terms restricting tenants from negotiating rebates with nominated suppliers should be incorporated into the underlease
  2. 2 Whether claimants are entitled to damages for loss of rebates from November 2002 to February 2006
  3. 3 Whether claimants are entitled to damages for the post-February 2006 period

Ratio Decidendi

The underlease did not contain the alleged implied terms restricting tenants from negotiating rebates with nominated suppliers. The contract was effective without such terms, they were not obvious or reasonable, and the claimants suffered no recoverable loss as suppliers would have paid all rebates to the tenants regardless. Claimants are only entitled to nominal damages for the relevant period. Claims for Budweiser sales are excluded due to a prior release from the beer-tie.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed except for nominal damages

Orders

  • Claim for substantial damages dismissed; claimants entitled only to nominal damages for the period November 2002 to February 2006
  • Post-February 2006 claim dismissed