Claimant would buy all its petrol from the defendant who agreed to supply all the claimant’s needs. The defendants purported to terminate the contract at a time when supplies were limited and an interim injunction was granted to restrain the withholding of supplies.
The judge accepted that this amounted to specific performance of a contract to sell chattels although they were not specific or ascertained.
Nonetheless, his decision was based on the inadequacy of damages as a remedy, as an injunction was the sole means of keeping the claimant’s business going. I.e. a “grave threat to business” is an alternative for the adequacy requirements mentioned above.
These are detailed case summaries (excerpts from cases - not paraphrase...
A collection of the best BPTC notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an ...
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.
Property and Chancery | Equitable Remedies Notes (24 pages) |
Contract Law | Remedies For Breach Pq Notes Notes (25 pages) |
Commercial Remedies BCL | Sky Petroleum V. Vip Petroleum Notes (3 pages) |