James E McCabe Ltd v Scottish Courage Ltd

James E McCabe Ltd v Scottish Courage Ltd

There is no room for the implied term alleged by McCabe regarding price support or co-operation in light of the express terms of the Amendment Agreement, which is exhaustive on pricing and marketing obligations. The Multiple Retailer/Notice application raises factual disputes inappropriate for summary judgment. Clause 7.1, if found to be an unreasonable restraint of trade, is not severable from the Agreement as its excision would fundamentally alter the nature of the contract.

Parties
Claimant: James E McCabe Limited; Defendant: Scottish Courage Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / Summary Judgment Applications
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in part; SCL succeeds on two out of three applications.
Legal Topics
Implied Terms, Restraint of Trade, Summary Judgment, Severability, Breach of Contract, Exclusive Distributorship, Notice Requirements
Contract Law Commercial Law Implied Terms Restraint of Trade Summary Judgment Severability Breach of Contract Exclusive Distributorship +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James E McCabe Limited

Claimant

Scottish Courage Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / Summary Judgment Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an implied term as to price support or co-operation can be read into the Agreement in light of express terms
  2. 2 Whether SCL breached notice requirements under Clause 1.4 regarding direct sales to retailers in Northern Ireland
  3. 3 Whether Clause 7.1 (non-compete) is severable if found to be an unreasonable restraint of trade

Ratio Decidendi

There is no room for the implied term alleged by McCabe regarding price support or co-operation in light of the express terms of the Amendment Agreement, which is exhaustive on pricing and marketing obligations. The Multiple Retailer/Notice application raises factual disputes inappropriate for summary judgment. Clause 7.1, if found to be an unreasonable restraint of trade, is not severable from the Agreement as its excision would fundamentally alter the nature of the contract.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in part; SCL succeeds on two out of three applications.

Orders

  • Summary judgment granted for SCL on the Price Restrictions application; McCabe's claim on implied price support dismissed.
  • Summary judgment refused on the Multiple Retailer/Notice application; issue to proceed to trial.