Singh v Redford
A binding contract for the sale of the business was formed by 9 June 2012; the claimant is not entitled to restitution as the payments were made pursuant to a binding agreement and retention by the defendant is not unjust; the defendant is entitled to recover £20,200 paid under duress, the balance of the purchase price (£5,000), and £1,650 for rent paid while not in occupation.
- Parties
- Claimant: Mr Gurdip Singh; Defendant: Mr George Albert Redford
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 07 September 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Judgment After Trial
- Outcome
- Claim dismissed; counterclaim allowed in part
- Legal Topics
- Formation of Contract, Unjust Enrichment, Duress, Business Sale, Leasehold Interests
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mr Gurdip Singh
Claimant
Mr George Albert Redford
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a binding contract for the sale of the business was formed
- 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to restitution of sums paid
- 3 Whether the defendant was unjustly enriched
Ratio Decidendi
A binding contract for the sale of the business was formed by 9 June 2012; the claimant is not entitled to restitution as the payments were made pursuant to a binding agreement and retention by the defendant is not unjust; the defendant is entitled to recover £20,200 paid under duress, the balance of the purchase price (£5,000), and £1,650 for rent paid while not in occupation.
Court Disposition
Claim dismissed; counterclaim allowed in part
Orders
- Claim for restitution dismissed
- Judgment for defendant on counterclaim for £26,850 plus agreed interest of £2,015
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