Facts: P. rented a building from D. The lease agreement stated that P. could not be sublet without the written permission of D. The P. and D. also entered into a written agreement where D. promised to give P. written consent to the subletting to an “acceptable tenant”. P. relied on D.`s promise, made considerable efforts, and found a suitable tenant willing to pay a higher rent than P.
was currently paying. But D. refused to allow the subletting of P. P. complained about the profits he would have made if he had sublet. D. reserved. The court upheld the Demurrer. The Court of Appeal set it aside and was heard for the main trial. 7. Notes: 1. The difference between the contract and the market is the only useful remedy for a stock market transaction.
The shortfall could not be calculated, as it is totally speculative. The damage to confidence in preparation for purchase would be minimal, if at all. 2. The contract-to-market differential in most slow markets is nothing. Therefore, in most cases, there does not appear to be a sanction for violations, with the exception of specific situations. Holding: “. the fact that certain issues remain for a future agreement between the parties does not necessarily preclude a binding agreement from having been concluded during the preliminary phase. Pianta vs. National Finance and Trustees  HCA 61; (1964) 180 CLR 146 (High Court) Seller and buyer – Contract of sale – oral agreement – specific performance – Adequacy of damages 9 The evidence contained in the action is strong, clear and violent, so as to leave no reasonable doubt that the applicant and the defendant entered into an oral agreement in which the defendant would give the applicant an interest in the lease agreement, if the complainant found someone to break through the lease. This applicant has fully concluded his part of the contract by finding a party who breaks through the lease.
We therefore conclude that the applicant and the defendant concluded an oral contract, as the applicant argued, and the Court of Justice was not mistaken about this finding. II. “Struggle of forms” A. Often, the standard forms used by two parties have conflicts. B. In the event of a problem, the parties are tempted to return to classic “theories of agreement” to get out of their contracts. C. To avoid conflicts, professional organizations strive to establish standard “fair and acceptable” forms for the entire industry.
D. The trend towards uniformity has been only partially successful. E. UCC has designed several sections to regulate the behavior of traders and honor the parties` belief that an agreement is in progress. Promising decision on the asymmetric (or hybrid) jurisdiction clause, although some risk remains: in Commerzbank Aktiengesellschaft against Liquimar Tankers Management Inc  EWHC 161 (Comm), an asymmetric (or hybrid) jurisdiction clause in favour of the English courts was ruled exclusively for the purposes of the “anti-torpedo” provisions of the Brussels recast. This meant that the English Court of Justice was able to rule on the dispute without having to go to the Greek courts that had been seised of the case in the first place. However, caution is required because (despite some of the judge`s comments in this case) it is far from clear that such clauses would only apply for the purposes of the corresponding provisions of the Hague Convention – which will likely be the regime applicable after Brexit. There have also been some French cases that have questioned the validity of such clauses.
Therefore, parties to financial contracts should be aware of the risk associated with the use of these clauses. This case will not be heard on appeal, as the parties reached a settlement agreement in December 2017. Todd v Nicol  SASR 72 Intention – Family Agreement Motivation: Neither P. nor D. had any knowledge that the stone was a diamond, so there was no fraud. In addition, there was no warranty agreement, either explicit or tacit.. . . .