Mileform Ltd v Interserve Security Ltd [2013] EWHC 3386 (QB) (05 November 2013)

Mileform Ltd v Interserve Security Ltd [2013] EWHC 3386 (QB) (05 November 2013)

The court found that no enforceable exclusivity term was agreed between the parties. The written agreement, which contained a non-exclusive appointment and an entire agreement clause, governed the relationship. The alleged oral exclusivity term was not established on the evidence, was inconsistent with the written terms, and was precluded by the entire agreement clause. There was no breach of contract by Interserve in ceasing to use Mileform's services or appointing others. Mileform's claims for damages and misrepresentation failed.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 3386
Parties
Claimant: Mileform Limited; Defendant: Interserve Security Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Contract Formation, Entire Agreement Clauses, Exclusivity Clauses, Breach of Contract, Damages, Misrepresentation
Contract Law Commercial Law Contract Formation Entire Agreement Clauses Exclusivity Clauses Breach of Contract Damages Misrepresentation

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

Mileform Limited

Claimant

Interserve Security Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract between Mileform and Interserve included an enforceable exclusivity term
  2. 2 Whether the entire agreement clause precluded reliance on any alleged oral exclusivity agreement
  3. 3 Whether there was a breach of contract by Interserve

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that no enforceable exclusivity term was agreed between the parties. The written agreement, which contained a non-exclusive appointment and an entire agreement clause, governed the relationship. The alleged oral exclusivity term was not established on the evidence, was inconsistent with the written terms, and was precluded by the entire agreement clause. There was no breach of contract by Interserve in ceasing to use Mileform's services or appointing others. Mileform's claims for damages and misrepresentation failed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Mileform's claim for damages for breach of contract is dismissed.
  • Mileform's claim for damages for misrepresentation is dismissed.