Chester 01244 405555

Grosvenor Court
Foregate Street Chester
Cheshire CH1 1HG
DX: 19990 Chester

Shrewsbury 01743 443 043

Lakeside House
Oxon Business Park
Shrewsbury SY3 5HJ
DX: 148563 Shrewsbury 14

Manchester 0844 800 8346

Pall Mall Court
61-67 King Street
Manchester M2 4PD

Send us a message
Our Offices

Chatty Emails Do Not Make Contract

25th September, 2013

In a warning to the business community that it can sometimes be hazardous to mix business with pleasure, a judge has emphasised that ‘chatty’ emails, partly devoted to discussion of the provenance and vintage of fine wine, did not conclude a property joint venture contract potentially worth millions.

At a time when the negotiating parties were on cordial terms, it had been agreed by a property development company that a consultancy company would be paid 20 per cent of the gross profits on any projects to which the latter introduced the former.

The consultancy company introduced the developer to an opportunity to develop a block of student housing that had proved highly successful and was projected to generate profits in excess of £8 million. However, following a falling-out between the parties which led to termination of their business relationship, a dispute arose as to whether or not the consultancy company was entitled to 20 per cent commission on those profits.

The High Court noted that the contractual dispute had arisen due to the ‘high level of informality’ in the negotiations between the parties, whose email correspondence was littered with ambiguous shorthand phrases and references to extraneous matters – including the relative merits of different vintages of claret.

Negotiations following the end of the parties’ business relationship had, at points, become ‘hopelessly muddled and confused’. Describing the dispute as ‘regrettable’, the Court noted that it faced a difficult task in attempting to extract evidence of the parties’ intentions from informal email traffic.

A critical email that had sought to set out the terms of agreement had been silent on the issue of the consultant’s commission and the Court concluded that, on a proper interpretation of the available evidence, the consultancy company had relinquished any entitlement to a share of profits from the development.

For more information on this or any other issues please contact Emma McGlinchey on 01244 405567 or email [email protected]

 

You might also be interested in...

Why there is more to CSR than just boosting a company’s ego

6th July, 2018

When a business invests in its community it deserves praise – but it must go beyond that, writes Helen Watson, a trustee at Claire House and partner at Aaron and Partners Solicitors. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is the link between a company and the community in which it operates. As a trustee on charity boards including Claire House... Read More »

Stuart Haynes reports on IAG Global – Wiesbaden 14th to 17th June 2018

4th July, 2018

Stuart Haynes, Corporate & Commercial Partner and IAG Global Board Member, reports on IAG Global – Wiesbaden held 14th to 17th June 2018 Stuart Haynes (IAG Global Board Member) Stuart Scott-Goldstone and Nick Clarke attended the recent IAG Global meeting in Wiesbaden which was held at the Grand Hotel Nassauer Hof from 14th – and 17th July 2018 The meeting... Read More »

DNA Test ordered in inheritance dispute where paternity questioned

6th June, 2018

Rhiannon Edwards, Solicitor in the Wills, Trusts and Tax department, discusses the recent judgement in the case of Nield-Moir v Freeman, where the High Court has ordered one of two daughters of Colin Birtles, who has died, to take a DNA test to prove paternity as part of an inheritance dispute In an unusual case, the High Court... Read More »

Contact Us