Al-Atheer Jewellery Ltd Case Study
1. All references in this Defence to numbered paragraphs are to the Particulars of Claim.
2. Paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant did not have contract with the Claimant. According to the contract, the Claimant made an agreement with Al-Atheer Jewellery which is a Limited Liability Company. The Defendant was not a director of Al-Atheer Jewellery Ltd nor had any stake in the company at the time of the signed agreement. The Defendant was a part time sales manager in the particular shop.
3. The director of Al-Atheer Jewellery Ltd had a discussion with the Defendant that the company is willing to sell the branch of Al-Atheer Jewellery Ltd shop where the Defendant works. Surprisingly the Claimant's representative (Tanneshia McLoan) walked into …show more content…
The Defendant denies owing the Claimant any withdrawal fee and submits that the claim is totally misconceived. The Defendant is not Al-Atheer Jewellery Ltd.
9. The Claimant did not make any effort to contact Al-Atheer Jewellery Ltd itself throughout the duration of the contact and did not issue any bill against Al-Atheer Jewellery Ltd.
10. The Claimant neither provides the Defendant nor Al-Atheer Jewellery Ltd with details of its effort to sell the business. The Claimant did not make any effort to cause the effective sale of the business. There was no single view from any potential buyer from the Claimant for 3 years since the agreement was made. Al-Atheer Jewellery Ltd still owns the shop because it was unable to sell it. Accordingly the entire contract will not pass the reasonable test under s.11 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
11. The Defendant believe the Claimant must normally cause the effective sale of the business as it promised if it is to receive its commission, as stated by Lord Neuberger in Foxtons Limited v Pelkey Bicknemm [2008] EWCA Civ 419.
12. For the reasons set out above, the Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to recover the sum of £1,800.
The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are
2. Paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant did not have contract with the Claimant. According to the contract, the Claimant made an agreement with Al-Atheer Jewellery which is a Limited Liability Company. The Defendant was not a director of Al-Atheer Jewellery Ltd nor had any stake in the company at the time of the signed agreement. The Defendant was a part time sales manager in the particular shop.
3. The director of Al-Atheer Jewellery Ltd had a discussion with the Defendant that the company is willing to sell the branch of Al-Atheer Jewellery Ltd shop where the Defendant works. Surprisingly the Claimant's representative (Tanneshia McLoan) walked into …show more content…
The Defendant denies owing the Claimant any withdrawal fee and submits that the claim is totally misconceived. The Defendant is not Al-Atheer Jewellery Ltd.
9. The Claimant did not make any effort to contact Al-Atheer Jewellery Ltd itself throughout the duration of the contact and did not issue any bill against Al-Atheer Jewellery Ltd.
10. The Claimant neither provides the Defendant nor Al-Atheer Jewellery Ltd with details of its effort to sell the business. The Claimant did not make any effort to cause the effective sale of the business. There was no single view from any potential buyer from the Claimant for 3 years since the agreement was made. Al-Atheer Jewellery Ltd still owns the shop because it was unable to sell it. Accordingly the entire contract will not pass the reasonable test under s.11 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
11. The Defendant believe the Claimant must normally cause the effective sale of the business as it promised if it is to receive its commission, as stated by Lord Neuberger in Foxtons Limited v Pelkey Bicknemm [2008] EWCA Civ 419.
12. For the reasons set out above, the Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to recover the sum of £1,800.
The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are