Hard Rock Limited v HRCKY Limited [2018] JRC 026 (1 February 2018)

Hard Rock Limited v HRCKY Limited [2018] JRC 026 (1 February 2018)

The defendant's counter-claim has no real prospect of success because the evidence does not support a breach of any implied term of good faith, nor does it establish actionable misrepresentation or fraudulent silence. The franchise agreement's entire agreement clause precludes reliance on alleged representations, and there is no causal link between alleged breaches and loss. Even if prescription did not apply, the counter-claim would fail on the merits.

Citation
[2018] JRC 026
Parties
First Plaintiff: Hard Rock Limited; Second Plaintiff: Hard Rock Café International STP Inc; Defendant: HRCKY Limited
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
01 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Summary Dismissal of Counter Claim / Summary Judgment
Outcome
Summary dismissal of defendant's counter-claim granted
Legal Topics
Implied Terms of Good Faith, Fraudulent Misrepresentation (dol), Fraudulent Silence (dol Par Réticence), Prescription (limitation of Actions), Entire Agreement Clauses
Contract Law Franchise Law Commercial Law Implied Terms of Good Faith Fraudulent Misrepresentation (dol) Fraudulent Silence (dol Par Réticence) Prescription (limitation of Actions) Entire Agreement Clauses

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 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hard Rock Limited

First Plaintiff

Hard Rock Café International STP Inc

Second Plaintiff

HRCKY Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Summary Dismissal of Counter Claim / Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an implied term of good faith exists in the franchise agreement and if breached
  2. 2 Whether fraudulent misrepresentation (dol) or fraudulent silence (dol par réticence) occurred
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's counter-claim is prescribed (time-barred)

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's counter-claim has no real prospect of success because the evidence does not support a breach of any implied term of good faith, nor does it establish actionable misrepresentation or fraudulent silence. The franchise agreement's entire agreement clause precludes reliance on alleged representations, and there is no causal link between alleged breaches and loss. Even if prescription did not apply, the counter-claim would fail on the merits.

Court Disposition

Summary dismissal of defendant's counter-claim granted

Orders

  • Defendant's counter-claim is dismissed in its entirety
  • Proceedings are at an end