Artpower Ltd v Bespoke Couture Ltd & Ors

Artpower Ltd v Bespoke Couture Ltd & Ors

The court found no evidence of misrepresentation or warranty inducing the side agreement; the payment of £150,000 was not conditional on the removal of O-Z label products by 31 August 2003 but was payable upon the actual conclusion of the Debenhams and BMB agreements, which occurred in February 2004. The operation of the Bicester outlet did not breach the licence agreement as the goods sold were out-of-season and not in direct competition with Red Label products. The appeal by Artpower was dismissed and the cross-appeal by Bespoke was allowed.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Artpower Limited; Claimant: Marchpower Holdings Limited; Claimant: Michael Morris; Defendant/respondent: Bespoke Couture Limited; Defendant/respondent: Ozwald Boateng
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Artpower's appeal dismissed; Bespoke's cross-appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Construction of Contract, Restrictive Covenants, Breach of Contract, Injunctions
Contract Law Commercial Law Misrepresentation Construction of Contract Restrictive Covenants Breach of Contract Injunctions

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Artpower Limited

Claimant/appellant

Marchpower Holdings Limited

Claimant

Michael Morris

Claimant

Bespoke Couture Limited

Defendant/respondent

Ozwald Boateng

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the side agreement was induced by misrepresentation or warranty regarding the termination of the Debenhams and BMB agreements and the removal of O-Z label products by 31 August 2003
  2. 2 Whether payment of £150,000 under the side agreement was conditional on cessation of O-Z label product sales by 31 August 2003
  3. 3 Whether the side agreement required termination of the Debenhams and BMB agreements by 31 August 2003

Ratio Decidendi

The court found no evidence of misrepresentation or warranty inducing the side agreement; the payment of £150,000 was not conditional on the removal of O-Z label products by 31 August 2003 but was payable upon the actual conclusion of the Debenhams and BMB agreements, which occurred in February 2004. The operation of the Bicester outlet did not breach the licence agreement as the goods sold were out-of-season and not in direct competition with Red Label products. The appeal by Artpower was dismissed and the cross-appeal by Bespoke was allowed.

Court Disposition

Artpower's appeal dismissed; Bespoke's cross-appeal allowed.

Orders

  • Artpower's appeals on issues 1-3 and 5 dismissed
  • Bespoke's cross-appeal on the Bicester outlet allowed