Case Brief Essay

585 Words3 Pages
Title: Baird Textile Holdings Ltd. v Marks & Spencer plc Citation: [2001] EWCA Civ 274 Plaintiff: Baird Textile Holdings Ltd Defendant: Marks & Spencer plc Court: Court of Appeal Civil Division in England and Wales Facts: • (Plaintiff) Baird Textile Holdings Ltd is a supplier of clothing to (Defendant) Marks & Spencer. • The plaintiff had been a supplier to the defendant for nearly 30 years. • The plaintiff that the defendant had stopped all supply agreements without prior notice on October 19th 1999. • Also in accordance to the plaintiff’s terms, there was a contract between them (the plaintiffs) and Marks & Spencer plc (the defendant), the plaintiff wanted to claim damages because any arrangement that is to be terminated should have the duration of 3 years prior notice. The plaintiff agreed to the fact that there was no express contract between the two companies. • The plaintiff’s claims were based on; (1) The principle of Estoppels. (2) The Contract. Issues: • Is the long term good relationship between the two companies considered to be a legal contract between them? • Was there discussion on justification of a contract? • Was there an agreement on the details of the relationship that contained sufficient certainty on the establishment of a contract? Result: • The claim made by the plaintiff had failed since the judges decided that the parties did not appear to have any legal relations intended. • Appeal by the plaintiff was not allowed but a cross-appeal was. Reasons: • Precedent from the case Combe v Combe [1951] 2 KB 215 shows that a promissory estoppel cannot create a cause of action. In this case, the wife claimed that the husband was estopped, or prevented from paying her £100 per year although he promised her to make the payment. The wife’s claim failed. • According to the judgment of the Vice Chancellor and Mance LJ,

More about Case Brief Essay

Open Document