Plaintiff contracted with Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 for Defendant1 to buy aircrafts from Defendant 2, which Plaintiff would lease and pay rent on from Defendant 1.
However there were many faults and Plaintiff sent the aircraft to Defendant 2 for repair. The faults persisted and Plaintiff ceased payments to Defendant 1, who repossessed and resold the aircraft.
Plaintiff sued Defendant 2 for rescission or damages.
Court held that rescission was not an option (due to exclusion clauses that were reasonable and valid under the Unfair Contracts Act) and, declining to follow Witter, that damages under s.2(2) were only available as an alternative to rescission and could not be awarded where the right of rescission had been lost.
----
Judge Jack QC seems right in asserting that s.2(2) is an alternative and therefore can only apply to cases where the right to rescission is made out- see wording.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedThese product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
Contract Law | Contract Law Problem Question Summary Notes (157 pages) |
Contract Law | Privity Notes (43 pages) |