Jordan Grand Prix Ltd. v Vodafone Group Plc [2003] EWHC 1956 (Comm) (04 August 2003)

Jordan Grand Prix Ltd. v Vodafone Group Plc [2003] EWHC 1956 (Comm) (04 August 2003)

No binding contract was concluded between Jordan and Vodafone on or before 22 March 2001, as essential terms remained outstanding, negotiations were ongoing, and there was no intention to create legal relations. Mr Haines did not have actual or ostensible authority to bind Vodafone to a sponsorship agreement. The evidence did not support any actionable misrepresentation by Vodafone or its agents. Jordan's claims were found to be without foundation and false.

Citation
[2003] EWHC 1956 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Jordan Grand Prix Limited; Defendant: Vodafone Group PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 August 2003
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim for Breach of Contract and Misrepresentation / High Court Trial, Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Authority of Agents, Formation of Contract, Misrepresentation, Sponsorship Agreements, Damages for Breach of Contract
Contract Law Commercial Law Tort Law Authority of Agents Formation of Contract Misrepresentation Sponsorship Agreements Damages for Breach 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jordan Grand Prix Limited

Claimant

Vodafone Group PLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim for Breach of Contract and Misrepresentation / High Court Trial, Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a binding sponsorship contract was concluded between Jordan and Vodafone on 22 March 2001
  2. 2 Whether Mr Haines had actual or ostensible authority to bind Vodafone
  3. 3 Whether there was actionable misrepresentation by Vodafone or its agents

Ratio Decidendi

No binding contract was concluded between Jordan and Vodafone on or before 22 March 2001, as essential terms remained outstanding, negotiations were ongoing, and there was no intention to create legal relations. Mr Haines did not have actual or ostensible authority to bind Vodafone to a sponsorship agreement. The evidence did not support any actionable misrepresentation by Vodafone or its agents. Jordan's claims were found to be without foundation and false.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Jordan's claim is dismissed in its entirety.
  • No damages awarded to Jordan.