Blue v Ashley (Rev 1) [2017] EWHC 1928 (Comm) (26 July 2017)

Blue v Ashley (Rev 1) [2017] EWHC 1928 (Comm) (26 July 2017)

No legally binding contract was formed between Mr Blue and Mr Ashley at the Horse & Groom pub on 24 January 2013 because the conversation was conducted in a social and jocular context, lacked the necessary intention to create legal relations, and was too vague and uncertain to be enforceable. The alleged agreement was not intended by either party to have legal effect, and a reasonable person would not have understood it as such.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 1928 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Mr Jeffrey Ross Blue; Defendant: Mr Michael James Wallace Ashley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim (contract) / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Formation of Contract, Intention to Create Legal Relations, Certainty of Terms, Consideration, Oral Agreements, Unilateral Contracts
Contract Law Commercial Law Formation of Contract Intention to Create Legal Relations Certainty of Terms Consideration Oral Agreements Unilateral Contracts

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Jeffrey Ross Blue

Claimant

Mr Michael James Wallace Ashley

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim (contract) / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an oral contract was formed between Mr Blue and Mr Ashley at the Horse & Groom pub on 24 January 2013
  2. 2 Whether the alleged agreement was intended to be legally binding
  3. 3 Whether the terms of the alleged agreement were sufficiently certain and complete to be enforceable

Ratio Decidendi

No legally binding contract was formed between Mr Blue and Mr Ashley at the Horse & Groom pub on 24 January 2013 because the conversation was conducted in a social and jocular context, lacked the necessary intention to create legal relations, and was too vague and uncertain to be enforceable. The alleged agreement was not intended by either party to have legal effect, and a reasonable person would not have understood it as such.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim for £15 million dismissed
  • No order for payment to Mr Blue