Wallis v Learonal (UK) Plc

Wallis v Learonal (UK) Plc

No legally binding oral agreement was concluded between Mr Wallis and Learonal (UK) Plc at the meeting on 16 November 1998. Too many essential matters were undecided, including the minimum payment, and the parties' conduct and correspondence evidenced ongoing negotiations rather than a concluded contract. The judge was entitled to find that there was no intention to create legal relations at that stage.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Karl Michael Wallis; Respondent/defendant: Learonal (UK) Plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 January 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division, Mercantile Court)
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Formation of Contract, Intention to Create Legal Relations, Oral Agreements, Business Negotiations
Contract Law Formation of Contract Intention to Create Legal Relations Oral Agreements Business Negotiations

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Karl Michael Wallis

Appellant/claimant

Learonal (UK) Plc

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division, Mercantile Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a legally binding oral agreement was concluded between Mr Wallis and Learonal (UK) Plc on 16 November 1998
  2. 2 Whether the parties intended to create legal relations at the meeting
  3. 3 Whether the conduct and correspondence after the meeting evidenced a concluded contract

Ratio Decidendi

No legally binding oral agreement was concluded between Mr Wallis and Learonal (UK) Plc at the meeting on 16 November 1998. Too many essential matters were undecided, including the minimum payment, and the parties' conduct and correspondence evidenced ongoing negotiations rather than a concluded contract. The judge was entitled to find that there was no intention to create legal relations at that stage.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs