CASE NAME AND CITATION
Valilas v Januzaj, April 08, 2014, [2014] EWCA Civ 436
COURT AND JUDGES
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) - LADY JUSTICE ARDEN, LORD JUSTICE UNDERHILL & LORD JUSTICE FLOYD
PARTIES
IOANNIS VALILAS- Respondent/Claimant
VALDET JANUZAJ- Appellant/Defendant
MATERIAL FACTS
Mr Valilas ran the practice and had an oral agreement with Mr Janujaz who used the premises, equipment and facilities and in return paid Mr Valilas 50% of his receipts each month. Mr Janujaz also had a contract with the local Primary Care Trust (PCT) by which he was paid monthly in advance for meeting a specified number of units per month. Where he did not meet the specified units then he had to refund any overpayment to the PCT. When Mr Janujaz realised he …show more content…
DECISION
By a majority decision 2:1 the Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant’s appeal with the other judge (Underhill LJ-) dissenting. However, all three appellate judges agreed that the claimant’s obligation to pay was not a strict condition of the contract but an innominate term. The time of payment is not generally of the essence of a commercial contract unless the parties have agreed that it should …show more content…
She used the formulation that asks whether the Mr Valilas has been deprived of substantially the whole of the benefit of the contract. She acknowledged that whether victim has been deprived of substantially the whole of the benefit of the contract is a question to be determined by appraising all the relevant circumstances and not a question of discretion rather fact-sensitive. Furthermore, the court has to take into account the relationship between the promised performance and the performance which in fact occurs.
Lady Justice Arden in her judgement based on their relationship, attached considerable importance to the parties' knowledge of the likely effect of the breach. More importantly, she established that Mr Januzaj knew that the likely result of Mr Valilas' actions was delayed payment, not a refusal to make payment.
In her decision Justice Arden cited two important cases Hongkong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd [1962] 2 QB 26 and Decro-Wall International SA v Practitioners in Marketing Ltd [1971] 1 WLR
Valilas v Januzaj, April 08, 2014, [2014] EWCA Civ 436
COURT AND JUDGES
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) - LADY JUSTICE ARDEN, LORD JUSTICE UNDERHILL & LORD JUSTICE FLOYD
PARTIES
IOANNIS VALILAS- Respondent/Claimant
VALDET JANUZAJ- Appellant/Defendant
MATERIAL FACTS
Mr Valilas ran the practice and had an oral agreement with Mr Janujaz who used the premises, equipment and facilities and in return paid Mr Valilas 50% of his receipts each month. Mr Janujaz also had a contract with the local Primary Care Trust (PCT) by which he was paid monthly in advance for meeting a specified number of units per month. Where he did not meet the specified units then he had to refund any overpayment to the PCT. When Mr Janujaz realised he …show more content…
DECISION
By a majority decision 2:1 the Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant’s appeal with the other judge (Underhill LJ-) dissenting. However, all three appellate judges agreed that the claimant’s obligation to pay was not a strict condition of the contract but an innominate term. The time of payment is not generally of the essence of a commercial contract unless the parties have agreed that it should …show more content…
She used the formulation that asks whether the Mr Valilas has been deprived of substantially the whole of the benefit of the contract. She acknowledged that whether victim has been deprived of substantially the whole of the benefit of the contract is a question to be determined by appraising all the relevant circumstances and not a question of discretion rather fact-sensitive. Furthermore, the court has to take into account the relationship between the promised performance and the performance which in fact occurs.
Lady Justice Arden in her judgement based on their relationship, attached considerable importance to the parties' knowledge of the likely effect of the breach. More importantly, she established that Mr Januzaj knew that the likely result of Mr Valilas' actions was delayed payment, not a refusal to make payment.
In her decision Justice Arden cited two important cases Hongkong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd [1962] 2 QB 26 and Decro-Wall International SA v Practitioners in Marketing Ltd [1971] 1 WLR