| Research strategy adopted Issue A: Whether Phantom’s claim in respect of monies due for the orders numbered 701 and 704 amounting to £62,500 plus vat is valid Search Terms Used“injunction” and “mandatory injunction” Primary SourcesWakeham v Wood (1982) 43 P & CR 40Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co Ltd [1895] 1 Ch 287 Issue B: Whether Titan’s counterclaim for consequential loss in respect of replacement beams amounting to £65,000 plus vat as set out in the letter from Brierley Khan solicitors dated 21 January 2022 is valid Search Terms Used“specific performance” and “unforeseen circumstances” Primary SourcesWolverhampton Corp v Emmons [1901] 1 QB 515Johnson v Agnew [1980] AC 367 at 400 Issue C: Whether the meeting on 9th December 2021 and subsequent email sent on 10th December 2021 constituted an agreement Search Terms Used“subjective approach” Primary SourcesRTS Flexible Systems Ltd v Molkerei Alois Muller Gmbh & Co. KG [2010] UKSC 14 at [45] Issue D: What were the express and implied terms of the agreement? Search Terms Used“express terms”, “implied terms” and “matrix of fact” Primary SourcesICS Ltd v West Bromwich [1998] 1 WLR 896 Issue E: Whether the contract was frustrated Search Terms Used“frustration” and “failure to perform” Primary SourcesThe Sea Angel, [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 517 at [111] Issue F: Whether there was breach of contract Search Terms Used“breach” and “obligations” Issue G: Which damages can Phantom Steel Limited recover? Search Terms Used“damages” Primary SourcesWatts v Morrow [1991] 1 WLR 1421, 1445Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2001] 2 WLR 72 Word Count: 386 |
