ARTICLE
25 September 2013

Tests For Whether There Is A Binding Agreement

CR
Charles Russell Speechlys LLP

Contributor

We are an international law firm with a focus on private capital, at the intersection of personal, family and business. We have a broad range of skills and collective legal expertise and experience with an international outlook across the full spectrum of business and personal needs. Our firm is headquartered in London with offices across the UK, Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Whether your business operates in a single country or across borders, we’ll put together your perfect team – pulling from our sector and geographical expertise and our partnerships with the best law firms across the world covering 200 legal jurisdictions.

Mehboob and the other Plaintiffs were travel companies in dispute with PIA about payment of commission.
United Kingdom Corporate/Commercial Law

Mehboob Travel Limited & Others and Pakistan International Airline Corp QBD

Mehboob and the other Plaintiffs were travel companies in dispute with PIA about payment of commission. They entered into negotiations to settle the dispute. A "memorandum of understanding" was signed by PIA and two of the claimants. PIA submitted that the MOU was a binding contract and that all the claimants had been bound by actual or apparent authority.

Not surprisingly, the High Court rejected the claim. There is no full judgment, but the case note provides a useful list of matters to be borne in mind in determining the issue:

  • whether there was a binding contract was not a question of the subjective state of mind of the parties, but what they had objectively agreed.
  • unless all material terms were agreed, there was not a contract.
  • from the point of view of a reasonable person in the same situation, there was no intention to create legal relations. The travel agents were bringing highly complex and high value claims and it was highly unlikely that they would have intended to conclude all matters via an MOU which was rushed and drawn up without lawyers.
  • it was material that the words "contract" and "full and final" were missing from the MOU.
  • there was no evidence for a finding of actual authority to settle. Having actual authority to negotiate did not mean having authority to settle. This was particularly the case where PIA knew that not all the claimants were even aware of the meeting.

Comment

The result seems obvious, but the items taken into account by the court in reaching its decision provide a useful checklist.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More