Strydom v Vendside Ltd

Strydom v Vendside Ltd

The implied term contended for was not necessary for business efficacy and not within the scope of admitted terms; the contract was not unconscionable as it was not oppressive; limitation was extended due to deliberate concealment but the substantive claim fails.

Parties
Claimant (appellant): Brian Strydom; Defendant (respondent): Vendside Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian Strydom

Claimant (appellant)

Vendside Limited

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an implied term existed requiring the defendant not to mislead the claimant regarding costs
  2. 2 Whether the contract was unconscionable and should be set aside
  3. 3 Whether limitation was extended due to deliberate concealment

Ratio Decidendi

The implied term contended for was not necessary for business efficacy and not within the scope of admitted terms; the contract was not unconscionable as it was not oppressive; limitation was extended due to deliberate concealment but the substantive claim fails.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed