Royal Mail Estates Limited v Maple Teesdale Borzou Chaharsough Shirazi
The words 'the benefit of this Contract is personal to the Buyer' and related clauses do not amount to a contrary agreement for the purpose of s.36C, as there is no evidence the parties intended to exclude the statutory effect; therefore, the Defendants are personally liable under the contract.
- Parties
- Claimant: Royal Mail Estates Limited; Defendant: Maple Teesdale; Defendant: Borzou Chaharsough Shirazi
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 02 July 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Summary Judgment Application
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Pre Incorporation Contracts, Personal Liability of Agents, Statutory Interpretation, Assignment of Contractual Benefit
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Royal Mail Estates Limited
Claimant
Maple Teesdale
Defendant
Borzou Chaharsough Shirazi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil / Summary Judgment Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether clauses 24.1 and 24.2 of the contract constitute an 'agreement to the contrary' under s.36C of the Companies Act 1985
- 2 Whether the Defendants are personally liable under the contract by operation of s.36C
Ratio Decidendi
The words 'the benefit of this Contract is personal to the Buyer' and related clauses do not amount to a contrary agreement for the purpose of s.36C, as there is no evidence the parties intended to exclude the statutory effect; therefore, the Defendants are personally liable under the contract.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- Summary judgment application dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment