Days Medical Aids Ltd. v Pihsiang Machinery Manufacturing Co Ltd.& Ors [2004] EWHC 44 (Comm) (29 January 2004)

Days Medical Aids Ltd. v Pihsiang Machinery Manufacturing Co Ltd.& Ors [2004] EWHC 44 (Comm) (29 January 2004)

The Agreement was validly renewed by DMA under Clause 10 as DMA had discharged its material obligations and maintained the required sales level. Mr and Mrs Wu were personally bound by the Agreement. The Agreement was not void for restraint of trade or under Article 81 EC as it was reasonable and/or exempt. Pihsiang was in repudiatory breach by supplying scooters to other distributors in Europe. DMA was entitled to damages for loss of exclusivity and future profits, subject to mitigation and quantum assessment.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 44 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Days Medical Aids Limited; First Defendant: Pihsiang Machinery Manufacturing Co Ltd; Second Defendant: Pihsiang Wu (also known as Donald P H Wu); Third Defendant: Chiang Ching-Ming Wu (also known as Jenny Wu)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 January 2004
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant
Legal Topics
Repudiatory Breach, Exclusive Distributorship, Restraint of Trade, Article 81 EC, Block Exemption, Estoppel, Best Endeavours, Damages, Mitigation of Loss
Contract Law Competition Law Commercial Law Repudiatory Breach Exclusive Distributorship Restraint of Trade Article 81 EC Block Exemption +4 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Days Medical Aids Limited

Claimant

Pihsiang Machinery Manufacturing Co Ltd

First Defendant

Pihsiang Wu (also known as Donald P H Wu)

Second Defendant

Chiang Ching-Ming Wu (also known as Jenny Wu)

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Agreement was validly renewed by DMA under Clause 10
  2. 2 Whether Mr and/or Mrs Wu were personally parties to and bound by the Agreement
  3. 3 Whether the Agreement was void or unenforceable as a restraint of trade or under Article 81 EC

Ratio Decidendi

The Agreement was validly renewed by DMA under Clause 10 as DMA had discharged its material obligations and maintained the required sales level. Mr and Mrs Wu were personally bound by the Agreement. The Agreement was not void for restraint of trade or under Article 81 EC as it was reasonable and/or exempt. Pihsiang was in repudiatory breach by supplying scooters to other distributors in Europe. DMA was entitled to damages for loss of exclusivity and future profits, subject to mitigation and quantum assessment.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant

Orders

  • Declaration that the Agreement was validly renewed and binding on all Defendants
  • Damages awarded to DMA for repudiatory breach by Pihsiang and the Wus, quantum to be assessed