Distribution in UK Law
Sportswear SpA v Four Marketing Ltd
I do not decide that the Defendant's position on either of these points is necessarily right as a matter of law, even if the necessary facts can be established. But it does seem to me that the points are sufficiently arguable for it to be wrong to strike these paragraphs out of the Defence.
Pelkey Bicknell v Foxtons Ltd
However, while such a term will relatively readily be implied into an estate agency contract, it was made clear by Viscount Simon in Luxor (Eastbourne) v Cooper  AC 108 at 119 that, where there is an argument whether or not such a term is to be implied, the issue should be resolved by reference to the normal rules relating to implication of terms.
First, the term identified in Article 57 of Bowstead is “very readily” implied, especially in a residential consumer context, unless the provisions of the particular contract or the facts of the particular case negative it (see per Woolf LJ in Brian Cooper at 19H-J and per Longmore LJ in County Homesearch at para 11). Sixthly, where the term is implied, the burden is on the agent seeking the commission to establish that he was the effective cause (see per Staughton LJ in Chasen Ryder at 28G).
It seems to me that there are two possible readings of the expression “a purchaser” in the phrase “a purchaser introduced by us”. The first, which is favoured by Foxtons and was adopted by the Judge, is that the expression means “a person who at some time in the future becomes a purchaser”. The alternative reading, advanced on behalf of Mrs Bicknell, is that the expression means “a person who becomes a purchaser as a result of our introduction”.
R (Al-Skeini) v Secretary of State for Defence
I would respectfully suggest that last sentence could as well have ended: "no less, but certainly no more." There seems to me, indeed, a greater danger in the national court construing the Convention too generously in favour of an applicant than in construing it too narrowly.
Secret Hotels2 Ltd (Formerly Med Hotels Ltd) v The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs
When interpreting an agreement, the court must have regard to the words used, to the provisions of the agreement as whole, to the surrounding circumstances in so far as they were known to both parties, and to commercial common sense. When deciding on the categorisation of a relationship governed by a written agreement, the label or labels which the parties have used to describe their relationship cannot be conclusive, and may often be of little weight.
Stephen Burney v The London Mews Company Ltd
London Mews were appointed sole agents by the vendor to sell Mr Burney's property. They prepared particulars and they advertised the property.
THE BRADFORD DISTRIBUTION
The distribution of references in a collection of pertinent source documents can be described and predicted by the relation where the parameter ß is related to the subject field and the completenes...
- RETAIL DISTRIBUTION: SOME REGIONAL COMPARISONS
- Distribution of Victorian Juvenile Offenders
- Fringe Benefit Distribution in Britain
Towards a “Distribution Policy”
The Investment Association (“IA”) has published an interesting report following its investigation into dividend payment practices of UK listed companies. The research was carried out in response to...
- Film Distribution Rights
- Parallel Imports And Exclusive UK Distribution Post-Brexit
UK: The Insurance Distribution Directive (the IDD) – Final Compromise Text
On 17 July 2015, the Council of the EU published the final compromise text of the Insurance Distribution Directive (“IDD”, formerly, the Second Insurance Mediation Directive (IMD2) or the recast IM...