Allen-Britten & Anor v Abels

Allen-Britten & Anor v Abels

The court found that Arbi’n’Tap Ltd contracted with Mr Abels for a turn-key vessel fit for use as a café/restaurant. Mr Abels breached express and implied terms by late delivery, failing to complete the vessel, failing to provide a proper statement of stability, and delivering a vessel unfit for purpose. These breaches directly caused the claimants’ losses, including loss of profits and repair costs. The defendant’s counterclaim for the final instalment and extras was allowed only as a set-off against damages, as the contract was repudiated due to his breaches.

Parties
Claimant: Corrine Allen-Britten; Claimant: Arbi’n’Tap Limited; Defendant: David Arthur Abels
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
judgment for claimants with set-off for defendant's counterclaim
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Sale of Goods, Implied Terms, Damages, Fitness for Purpose, Repudiation, Set Off
Contract Law Commercial Law Breach of Contract Sale of Goods Implied Terms Damages Fitness for Purpose Repudiation +1 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Corrine Allen-Britten

Claimant

Arbi’n’Tap Limited

Claimant

David Arthur Abels

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who was the purchaser and what were the relevant terms of the contract?
  2. 2 What breaches of contract occurred?
  3. 3 Did those breaches cause the claimed losses?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Arbi’n’Tap Ltd contracted with Mr Abels for a turn-key vessel fit for use as a café/restaurant. Mr Abels breached express and implied terms by late delivery, failing to complete the vessel, failing to provide a proper statement of stability, and delivering a vessel unfit for purpose. These breaches directly caused the claimants’ losses, including loss of profits and repair costs. The defendant’s counterclaim for the final instalment and extras was allowed only as a set-off against damages, as the contract was repudiated due to his breaches.

Court Disposition

judgment for claimants with set-off for defendant's counterclaim

Orders

  • Claimants recover loss of profits (£37,268.00 + £36,836.00), cost of repairs (£41,132.00 + £15,636.00), plus interest from 6 August 2006.
  • Defendant entitled to set off £7,741.00 and £2,903.00 plus VAT for unpaid extras against damages.