Tool Metal v Tungsten Electric [1955] 1 WLR 761 (H.L.)
By Oxbridge Law TeamUpdated 04/01/2024 06:59
Reviewed ByOxbridge Law Team
Judgement for the case Tool Metal v Tungsten Electric
Table Of Contents
Defendant had to pay Plaintiff royalties for creating and selling its product, and paying compensation when it produced in excess of a certain volume.
The right to compensation was suspended during WWII and Plaintiff tried to reinstate it in 1945.
The HL ruled that “reasonable notice” had to be given in order to resume strict legal contractual rights.
This was determined basically on account of what would be “equitable” i.e. fair.
Any comments or edits about this case? Get in touch
For Further Study on Tool Metal v Tungsten Electric
Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.
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 StartedSimilar Cases
Related Product Samples
These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
Claim every advantage to get a first in law
1,511 total pages
747 purchased
Contract law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...
Since 2010, Oxbridge Notes has been a trusted education marketplace, supplying high-quality materials from top achievers at universities like Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, and Yale.