Levison v Farin

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtQueen's Bench Division
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
13 cases
  • Triumph Controls – UK Ltd v Primus International Holding Company
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Technology and Construction Court)
    • 11 March 2019
    ...clauses is to afford a seller who wishes to avoid a breach of warranty the opportunity to give specific notice of a matter to the buyer: Levison v Farin [1978] 2 All ER 1149 (QBD) per Gibson J at 1157: “I do not say that facts made known by disclosure of the means of knowledge in the cours......
  • LTT Global Consultants v BMC Academy Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 1 April 2011
    ...that the principle cannot be applied where both parties were involved in the drafting of the agreement. The case of Levison v Farin [1978] 2 All ER 1149 held that contra proferentem is irrelevant where the clause “emerged as a result of joint efforts” (at p 1156) and Kleinwort Benson v Mala......
  • Man Nutzfahrzeuge AG and another v Freightliner Ltd and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • 28 October 2005
    ...been disclosed. 177 In this context my attention was drawn to three cases in which the scope of disclosure letters has been considered, Levison v Farin [1978] 2 All E.R. 1149, New Hearts Ltd v Cosmopolitan Investments Ltd [1997] BCLC 249 and Infiniteland Ltd v Artisan Contracting Ltd (unrep......
  • MDW Holdings Ltd v James Robert Norvill
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 4 May 2021
    ...clear that disclosure clauses have a clear purpose. First, the commercial purpose of such clauses was clearly identified by Gibson J in Levison v Farin [1978] 2 All ER 1149, 1157: “I do not say that facts made known by disclosure of the means of knowledge in the course of negotiation could......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 firm's commentaries
  • COVID-19 UK Corporate Creating Certainty in Uncertain Times - Return of the MAC
    • United Kingdom
    • JD Supra United Kingdom
    • 7 July 2020
    ...behind its ruling, it confirmed that Brigadier 5 Decura IM Investments LLP & others v UBS AG [2015] EWHC 171 (Comm).6 Levison v Farin [1978] 2 ALL ER 1149.7 Akorn v Fresenius Del. Ch. Oct. 1, 2018.8 IBP v Tyson, 2001 Del. Ch. Lexis 81.9 The conclusions of this ruling are reflected in the Pane......
  • Invoking Material Adverse Change based on Covid-19: Easier said than done
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • 26 May 2020
    ...v. Benny, (1992) 115 ALR 207. [2] In Re IBP Inc., Shareholders Litigation, 789 A.2d 14 (Del. Ch. 2001), at 68. [3] Levison v. Farin, [1978] 2 All ER 1149, at 1156. [4] Grupo Hotelero Urvasco SA v. Carey Value Added SL & Anr., [2013] EWHC 1039, at Pg. 60 Para 362; Inmet Mining Corp. v. Homes......
  • MAC Clauses Post August 2007 - What Do They Mean In The Current Financial Markets?
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq United Kingdom
    • 22 September 2009
    ...plc v. Celtech International Ltd [2006] EWHC 63; Glowlite Ltdv. Jasper Conran Ltd The Times 29 January 1998; Levinson v. Farin [1978] 2 All ER 1149; Re Technology Investment Trust plc (1988) 4 BCC 244; National Westminster Bank plc v. Halesowen Pressworks Assembles Ltd [1972] AC 785 HL; Re ......
  • Nothing to Hide: Disclosures Against Warranties
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 7 December 2004
    ...frowned upon by the Courts is the disclosure of information from which a warranty disclosure needs to be deduced. Levinson v Farin [1978] 2 All ER 1149 involved the sale of a fashion company. The key designer of the company had become ill and this was having a detrimental impact on the comp......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Contract Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2015, December 2015
    • 1 December 2015
    ...negotiated, then the contra proferentem rule would not apply. The court based this proposition on the English case of Levison v Farin[1978] 2 All ER 1149, which held that the contra proferentem rule is irrelevant where the clause ‘emerged as a result of joint efforts’ (at p 1156). The court......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT