Case Brief…

Editing

Wickman Machine Tool Sales Ltd. v L. Schuler A.G.

1
  • The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit. If you are undoing an edit that is …
Latest revision Your text
Line 23: Line 23:
 
}}
 
}}
 
==Facts==
 
==Facts==
L. Schuler were a manufacturing company and they granted Wickman the sole right to sell their products in the UK. In the terms of the agreement, Wickman were to visit six of Schuler's major British clients each week for the duration of the contract (4 years), 1400 visits in total which they failed to do. It said in the contract that this was a "condition" of the agreement. Schuler repudiated the contract. The initial arbitrator found for Wickman, which was reversed at trial but then restored in the Court of Appeal.
+
L. Schuler were a manufacturing company and they granted Wickman the sole right to sell their products in the UK. In the terms of the agreement, Wickman were to visit six of Schuler's major British clients each week for the duration of the contract (4 years), 1400 vists in total which they failed to do. It said in the contract that this was a "condition" of the agreement. Schuler repudiated the contract. The initial arbitrator found for Wickman, which was reversed at trial but then restored in the Court of Appeal.;;
 
==Issue==
 
==Issue==
 
#Does calling something a “condition” in the contract mean that its breach leads to a right of rescission?
 
#Does calling something a “condition” in the contract mean that its breach leads to a right of rescission?
  Loading editor
Below are some commonly used wiki markup codes. Simply click on what you want to use and it will appear in the edit box above.

View this template