Baird Textile Holdings Ltd v Marks & Spencer Plc [2001] EWCA Civ 274 (28 February 2001)

Baird Textile Holdings Ltd v Marks & Spencer Plc [2001] EWCA Civ 274 (28 February 2001)

There was no implied contract between Baird and Marks & Spencer because the alleged obligations were insufficiently certain and there was no necessity to imply a contract. English law does not recognise a cause of action based on estoppel in non-proprietary contexts, and thus Baird's claims in both contract and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 274
Parties
Claimant: Baird Textile Holdings Limited; Defendant: Marks & Spencer plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment (cpr 24.2)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed; summary judgment granted to Marks & Spencer on all claims.
Legal Topics
Implied Contracts, Estoppel, Summary Judgment, Certainty in Contract, Intention to Create Legal Relations, Estoppel by Convention, Promissory Estoppel
Contract Law Equity Implied Contracts Estoppel Summary Judgment Certainty in Contract Intention to Create Legal Relations Estoppel by Convention +1 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 4 Authorities cited 35 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Baird Textile Holdings Limited

Claimant

Marks & Spencer plc

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment (cpr 24.2)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a long-term supply relationship gave rise to an implied contract requiring reasonable notice of termination
  2. 2 Whether estoppel could prevent Marks & Spencer from terminating the relationship without reasonable notice
  3. 3 Whether the alleged obligations were sufficiently certain to be enforceable

Ratio Decidendi

There was no implied contract between Baird and Marks & Spencer because the alleged obligations were insufficiently certain and there was no necessity to imply a contract. English law does not recognise a cause of action based on estoppel in non-proprietary contexts, and thus Baird's claims in both contract and estoppel had no real prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed; summary judgment granted to Marks & Spencer on all claims.

Orders

  • Summary judgment for Marks & Spencer plc on both contract and estoppel claims
  • No trial to proceed on the estoppel issue