Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (In Administration) v Exotix Partners Llp [2019] EWHC 2380 (Ch) (09 September 2019)

Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (In Administration) v Exotix Partners Llp [2019] EWHC 2380 (Ch) (09 September 2019)

The contract, objectively construed, was for the sale of 22,955 GDNs at a price of US$7,707.93. Both parties were mistaken as to the value, but the law does not provide relief for a bad bargain absent fraud or misrepresentation. No term is to be implied for fractional settlement or correction of obvious errors in...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 2380 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration); Defendant: Exotix Partners LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / High Court (chancery Division) Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Contracts, Mistake in Contract, Restitution for Unjust Enrichment, Implied Terms, Securities Trading, Settlement of Securities, Market Practice and Usage
Contract Law Commercial Law Restitution Interpretation of Contracts Mistake in Contract Restitution for Unjust Enrichment Implied Terms Securities Trading +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration)

Claimant

Exotix Partners LLP

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / High Court (chancery Division) Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What was the subject matter and price agreed in the oral contract for the sale of Peruvian Government Global Depository Notes (GDNs)?
  2. 2 Is LBIE entitled to restitution or damages for mistaken over-delivery of GDNs?
  3. 3 Should terms be implied to allow for fractional settlement or correction of obvious errors?

Ratio Decidendi

The contract, objectively construed, was for the sale of 22,955 GDNs at a price of US$7,707.93. Both parties were mistaken as to the value, but the law does not provide relief for a bad bargain absent fraud or misrepresentation. No term is to be implied for fractional settlement or correction of obvious errors in these circumstances. LBIE is not entitled to restitution or further payment; Exotix is entitled to retain the windfall.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • LBIE's claim for restitution or further payment is dismissed.
  • No term is implied for fractional settlement or error correction.