Bronx Engineering Notes
This is a sample of our (approximately) 3 page long Bronx Engineering notes, which we sell as part of the Commercial Remedies BCL Notes collection, a Distinction package written at Oxford in 2013 that contains (approximately) 523 pages of notes across 153 different documents.
The original file is a 'Word (Docx)' whilst this sample is a 'PDF' representation of said file. This means that the formatting here may have errors. The original document you'll receive on purchase should have more polished formatting.
Bronx Engineering Revision
The following is a plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Commercial Remedies BCL Notes. This text version has had its formatting removed so pay attention to its contents alone rather than its presentation. The version you download will have its original formatting intact and so will be much prettier to look at.
BRONX ENGINEERING FACTS The plaintiff company carries on business in Tunis. The defendants are an engineering company whose registered office is at Stourbridge. The case for the plaintiffs is that on Sept. 7, 1973, the defendants contracted to sell certain machinery which they were to manufacture at the "ex-works" figure of £270,400, to which were to be added charges totalling £17,100 for transport to and loading on board ship, the final figure being thus £287,500. The defendants' term for delivery was as follows: Completion at our works ready for despatch nine months after receipt of order and after settlement of all technical and commercial details. On Jan. 23, 1974, the plaintiffs paid the defendants the first 10 per cent. instalment of £28,750 and on Apr. 2 the instalment of 35 per cent. or £100,625, the payments made thus amounting to £129,375 or some 45 per cent. of the total purchase price. The balance of the
£287,500 remains unpaid owing to the dispute which thereafter arose between the parties and led to the defendants intimating on Dec. 20, 1974, that the plaintiffs had repudiated the contract and that they were accepting such repudiation. They also intimated that they had found a Canadian buyer for the machinery at what appears to be a substantially enhanced price and that they were proposing to have it removed out of the jurisdiction to fulfil his contractual requirements. In the light of that information the plaintiffs issued a writ on Jan. 10, 1975, claiming (1) specific performance of the contract, (2) an injunction restraining the defendants from disposing of the machinery otherwise than for the plaintiffs and (3) damages. ISSUE But the plaintiffs cannot complain, I think, if this Court now starts by making the assumption in their favour that they will succeed in establishing at the trial a breach of contract by the defendants and if we thereafter proceed to consider whether, that being so, there would be any likelihood of the Court of trial decreeing specific performance of the contract of sale. If it appears to us that there would not be any likelihood, I think it follows that the interlocutory injunction sought ought not to be granted, for its object is to protect the plaintiff against such injury by the alleged violation of his contractual rights as he could not adequately be compensated for in damages were the issue of repudiation decided in his favour at the trial. HOLDING Adequacy of damages reasoning applies even under the Sale of Goods Act
****************************End Of Sample*****************************
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Commercial Remedies BCL Notes.