Schweppe v Harper [2008] EWCA Civ 442 (22 May 2008)

Schweppe v Harper [2008] EWCA Civ 442 (22 May 2008)

The Court of Appeal held that, by February 2004, Schweppe had performed substantial work towards the annulment and was entitled to continue to try to achieve it, with Harper bound to co-operate. Harper's withdrawal of instructions was a repudiatory breach. However, Schweppe was not entitled to the full fee, as his entitlement depended on the uncertain outcome of third party finance and court discretion. Damages were assessed at 50% of the fee, reflecting the substantial but not certain chance of success.

Citation
[2008] EWCA Civ 442
Parties
Appellant: Schweppe; Respondent: Harper
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Formation of Contract, Unilateral and Bilateral Contracts, Implied Terms, Repudiatory Breach, Damages Assessment, Certainty in Contract
Contract Law Formation of Contract Unilateral and Bilateral Contracts Implied Terms Repudiatory Breach Damages Assessment Certainty in Contract

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Schweppe

Appellant

Harper

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a binding contract between Schweppe and Harper for a fee contingent on annulment of bankruptcy and arranging finance
  2. 2 Whether the contract was bilateral, unilateral, or merely an offer revocable at will
  3. 3 Whether implied terms of co-operation or non-prevention applied

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that, by February 2004, Schweppe had performed substantial work towards the annulment and was entitled to continue to try to achieve it, with Harper bound to co-operate. Harper's withdrawal of instructions was a repudiatory breach. However, Schweppe was not entitled to the full fee, as his entitlement depended on the uncertain outcome of third party finance and court discretion. Damages were assessed at 50% of the fee, reflecting the substantial but not certain chance of success.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Award of damages to Schweppe in the sum of £25,000 (50% of the claimed fee)