The case involves the law on exclusive dealing arrangements which fall within the ROT doctrine. The case itself involved a lease-lease back arrangement when Mr and Mrs L were in a financial difficulty. They were in a 21 year tie to but oil from Total with exit clauses at 7 and 14 years. It was held to be unreasonable at first instance which the CofA later reversed.
The importance of this case is that the CofA dismissed Total's argument that ROT couldn't apply in exclusive dealing arrangements. This shows the courts commitment in effectively policing these clauses.
The CofA placed considerable weight as authority by stating petrol ties shouldn't last more than 5 years, unless a supplier can show that they are economically necessary, again reinforcing the courts commitment to maintain a consistent approach to these cases.
Despite this, the CofA returned and applied Lord M's 2 conditions in Nordenfelt and placed emphasis on the principle of consideration in deciding whether a clause was reasonable.
The courts distinguished from Esso v Harpers Garage showing that the 21 year agreement cannot actually be rejected.
Comments
Report