Advanced Multi-Technology for Medical Industry & Ors v Uniserve Limited

Advanced Multi-Technology for Medical Industry & Ors v Uniserve Limited

Uniserve was not induced to contract by misrepresentation from Hitex. The parties validly varied the delivery schedule, and Hitex did not breach the Revised Schedule. Uniserve wrongfully terminated the Supply Contract, amounting to anticipatory breach. Hitex is entitled to damages for loss of bargain, calculated as contract price less market price for undelivered masks. Caramel and Mr Popeck are not entitled to further commission as the Commission Contract only provides for commission on masks actually delivered to the UK. Uniserve's claims against Maxitrac and Dr Stead fail as they acted within authority or were ratified.

Parties
Claimant: Advanced Multi-Technology for Medical Industry (trading as Hitex); Claimant: Caramel Sales Limited; Claimant: David Popeck; Defendant: Uniserve Limited; Third Party: Maxitrac Limited; Fourth Party: Andrew Stead
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim by Hitex allowed in part; claim by Caramel and Mr Popeck dismissed; Uniserve's counterclaim for US$300,000 allowed; all other counterclaims and third party claims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Misrepresentation, Agency, Damages, Contract Variation, Termination of Contract
Contract Law Commercial Law Breach of Contract Misrepresentation Agency Damages Contract Variation Termination of 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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Advanced Multi-Technology for Medical Industry (trading as Hitex)

Claimant

Caramel Sales Limited

Claimant

David Popeck

Claimant

Uniserve Limited

Defendant

Maxitrac Limited

Third Party

Andrew Stead

Fourth Party

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Uniserve was induced to enter the Supply Contract by misrepresentation
  2. 2 Whether Hitex breached its delivery obligations under the Supply Contract and/or Revised Schedule
  3. 3 Whether the Supply Contract was validly terminated

Ratio Decidendi

Uniserve was not induced to contract by misrepresentation from Hitex. The parties validly varied the delivery schedule, and Hitex did not breach the Revised Schedule. Uniserve wrongfully terminated the Supply Contract, amounting to anticipatory breach. Hitex is entitled to damages for loss of bargain, calculated as contract price less market price for undelivered masks. Caramel and Mr Popeck are not entitled to further commission as the Commission Contract only provides for commission on masks actually delivered to the UK. Uniserve's claims against Maxitrac and Dr Stead fail as they acted within authority or were ratified.

Court Disposition

Claim by Hitex allowed in part; claim by Caramel and Mr Popeck dismissed; Uniserve's counterclaim for US$300,000 allowed; all other counterclaims and third party claims dismissed.

Orders

  • Uniserve to pay Hitex damages of US$16,940,000 plus interest (subject to further submissions on interest and set-off for US$300,000)
  • Uniserve's counterclaim for US$300,000 allowed (mechanism for payment or set-off to be determined)