Author Topic: Ashley drunk. Leggatt promoted. Blue blue. W202.  (Read 495 times)

Offline yes

  • Power Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 208
  • Karma: +11/-1
  • About me: OU law student
Ashley drunk. Leggatt promoted. Blue blue. W202.
« on: July 26, 2017, 08:50:00 PM »

Para 48  is interesting with respect to highly contemporaneous [today, even!] HC discussion of basic contract rules re the requirements for a legally binding contract … agreement – intention – consideration ----and moving on at para 62 to English law’s prevailing objective test and irrelevancy of evidence of subjective belief [very good policy reasons for this, of course].

As with all questions of meaning in the law of contract, the touchstone is how the words used, in their context, would be understood by a reasonable person. For this purpose the context includes all relevant matters of background fact known to both parties. [para 63]

Ashley was in drunken state so escapes consequences of purported legal agreement to pay this chap Blue 15 mill squids.

In concluding para 142, Mr. Justice Leggatt [Sir George, in real life] says:

In the course of a jocular conversation with three investment bankers in a pub on the evening of 24 January 2013, Mr Ashley said that he would pay Mr Blue £15 million if Mr Blue could get the price of Sports Direct shares (then trading at around £4 per share) to £8. Mr Blue expressed his agreement to that proposal and everyone laughed. Thirteen months later the Sports Direct share price did reach £8. But no reasonable person present in the Horse & Groom on 24 January 2013 would have thought that the offer to pay Mr Blue £15 million was serious and was intended to create a contract, and no one who was actually present in the Horse & Groom that evening – including Mr Blue – did in fact think so at the time. They all thought it was a joke. The fact that Mr Blue has since convinced himself that the offer was a serious one, and that a legally binding agreement was made, shows only that the human capacity for wishful thinking knows few bounds.

Is Sir George implying dishonesty on part of Mr Blue in that last paragraph? Looks a bit like it.

He’s being promoted to CA later in the year (Leggatt not Blue, I mean  ---possible thread title!?).

Note mention of W202 basic Williams v Roffey 1999 CA case re past/practical consideration …viz:

Para 60: The defence of lack of consideration was accordingly hopeless and was quite rightly not pursued by counsel for Mr Ashley at the trial.

From the Guardian article:

Lawyers told the judge that Ashley had run up legal bills of £1.5m, and Blue bills of “£1m-odd”.

The judge said Blue would have to pick up Ashley’s legal bills and £600,000 would have to be paid on account within the next month.

HC confirming that addressees of the law need deep pockets ---- UKSC, also today, saying the opposite. Context is all.