Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.
Chapter
Chapter
In exercising its discretion under s1(2), the court may have regard to any expenses incurred by the payor, since this is a relevant factor in determining whether there has been an unjust enrichment. In Gamerco SA v ICM/ Fair Warning (Agency) Ltd, the promoter of a rock concert made an advance payment to the intended performers at the concert. Subsequently, the contract was held to be frustrated on the ground that the permit to hold the concert at the stadium was withdrawn for safety reasons. The claimants (promoters) had paid the group $412,500 prior to the date on which the contract was frustrated, but both the promoters and the group had incurred expenditure in preparing for the concert. It was held that the promoters were entitled to recover the pre-payment and that the group was not entitled to anything under the proviso to s1(2): Gamerco SA v ICM/ Fair Warning (Agency) Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 1226, QBD, p 1234
DOI link for In exercising its discretion under s1(2), the court may have regard to any expenses incurred by the payor, since this is a relevant factor in determining whether there has been an unjust enrichment. In Gamerco SA v ICM/ Fair Warning (Agency) Ltd, the promoter of a rock concert made an advance payment to the intended performers at the concert. Subsequently, the contract was held to be frustrated on the ground that the permit to hold the concert at the stadium was withdrawn for safety reasons. The claimants (promoters) had paid the group $412,500 prior to the date on which the contract was frustrated, but both the promoters and the group had incurred expenditure in preparing for the concert. It was held that the promoters were entitled to recover the pre-payment and that the group was not entitled to anything under the proviso to s1(2): Gamerco SA v ICM/ Fair Warning (Agency) Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 1226, QBD, p 1234
In exercising its discretion under s1(2), the court may have regard to any expenses incurred by the payor, since this is a relevant factor in determining whether there has been an unjust enrichment. In Gamerco SA v ICM/ Fair Warning (Agency) Ltd, the promoter of a rock concert made an advance payment to the intended performers at the concert. Subsequently, the contract was held to be frustrated on the ground that the permit to hold the concert at the stadium was withdrawn for safety reasons. The claimants (promoters) had paid the group $412,500 prior to the date on which the contract was frustrated, but both the promoters and the group had incurred expenditure in preparing for the concert. It was held that the promoters were entitled to recover the pre-payment and that the group was not entitled to anything under the proviso to s1(2): Gamerco SA v ICM/ Fair Warning (Agency) Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 1226, QBD, p 1234
ABSTRACT
Garland J: The contract, having been discharged by frustration, the plaintiffs were entitled to recover from the second defendants the advance payment of US$412,500 (less the sum returned by the first defendants) by virtue of section 1(2) of the Act of 1943 ...
