This is an extract of our Daraydan Holdings V. Solland International document, which we sell as part of our Commercial Remedies BCL Notes collection written by the top tier of Oxford students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Commercial Remedies BCL Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
DARAYDAN HOLDINGS V. SOLLAND INTERNATIONAL FACTS Mr Khalid, the fifth defendant, extracted from Mr and Mrs Solland and their companies (the first to fourth defendants) about PS1.8m between 1997 and 2001, which represented a 10% commission on receipts from contracts with the claimants for the luxurious refurbishment of properties in London and Qatar. The proceedings against Mr and Mrs Solland and their companies have now been settled, and the issues for decision are whether Mr Khalid is accountable to the claimants, and in particular whether the claimants are entitled to an order that he holds the payments on constructive trust. In January 1997, after discussions between (in particular) Mrs Solland, Sheikh Mohammed, Sheikh Sultan, and Mr Khalid, Cairns and Interiors entered into what became the first of several contracts between the claimants and Interiors and International for the refurbishment of properties owned by the claimants in England and in Qatar. It was followed by other contracts, under which more than PS20m was paid by the claimants to Interiors or International. Mr and Mrs Solland procured the payment by Interiors or International to Mr Khalid (or his nominees) of 10% of payments made by the claimants to Interiors and International, and between 31 January 1997 and 22 October 2001 about PS1.8m was paid to him by Interiors or International, or to Mrs Al-Attiya or to Mr Al-Attiya on his instructions. In these proceedings the claimants claimed against all the defendants an account of all secret commissions, an order for restitution of the secret commissions, a declaration that they were received on resulting or constructive trust and that the claimants were entitled to trace, an account of profits, and damages for deceit or conspiracy to defraud. HOLDING In proceedings against the payer of the bribe there is no need for the principal to prove (a) that the payer of the bribe acted with a corrupt motive; (b) that the agent's mind was actually affected by the bribe; (c) that the payer knew or suspected that the agent would conceal the payment from the principal; (d) that the principal suffered any loss or that the transaction was in some way unfair: the law is intended to operate as a deterrent against the giving of bribes, and it will be assumed that the true price of any goods bought by the principal was increased by at least the amount of the bribe, but any loss beyond the amount of the bribe itself must be proved; (e) that the bribe was given specifically in connection with a particular contract, since a bribe may also be
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Commercial Remedies BCL Notes.