Proton Energy Group SA v Lietuva

Proton Energy Group SA v Lietuva

A binding contract was formed on 14 June 2012 when Orlen confirmed Proton's firm offer, with main terms agreed and details to be negotiated later. There was no implied term requiring Orlen's satisfaction as to origin and tax status. Proton did not repudiate the contract by proposing a change in quantity. Orlen repudiated the contract by failing to open a letter of credit and terminating negotiations. Damages are recoverable by Proton, subject to deduction for short delivery and quality shortfall, calculated by reference to Orlen's internal model due to absence of market price.

Parties
Claimant: Proton Energy Group SA; Defendant: Orlen Lietuva
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed; judgment for Proton Energy Group SA
Legal Topics
Formation of Contract, Implied Terms, Repudiation, Damages, Sale of Goods, Misrepresentation
Contract Law Commercial Law Formation of Contract Implied Terms Repudiation Damages Sale of Goods 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Proton Energy Group SA

Claimant

Orlen Lietuva

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a binding contract was formed on 14 June 2012
  2. 2 Whether there was an implied term regarding satisfaction as to origin and tax status
  3. 3 Whether Proton repudiated the contract

Ratio Decidendi

A binding contract was formed on 14 June 2012 when Orlen confirmed Proton's firm offer, with main terms agreed and details to be negotiated later. There was no implied term requiring Orlen's satisfaction as to origin and tax status. Proton did not repudiate the contract by proposing a change in quantity. Orlen repudiated the contract by failing to open a letter of credit and terminating negotiations. Damages are recoverable by Proton, subject to deduction for short delivery and quality shortfall, calculated by reference to Orlen's internal model due to absence of market price.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; judgment for Proton Energy Group SA

Orders

  • Orlen Lietuva to pay damages to Proton Energy Group SA as determined by the court
  • CHF 5,000 awarded for legal costs relating to Lithuanian proceedings