By the effect of the transfer of engagements it has succeeded to the rights and the liabilities of the First Defendant.

The Second Defendant was then called Co-operative Wholesale Society Limited, and has since changed its name. In fact it ceased to exist before the claim was brought, following a transfer of engagements to the Second Defendant under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts. I have referred to the First Defendant, as it is named in the heading to the action. The issues on the damages claim are substantial, the Claimant seeking to show that the Defendant was in breach in other respects, and also having to prove causation and quantum.ģ. As it turns out, the issues on the indemnity claim are now very limited. It seeks to establish liability on a wider basis, and there is no doubt that this is open to it. The Claimant has the benefit of a judgment given under Part 24 for liability under the indemnity and in respect of breach of the agreement in one respect. The Claimant also seeks an indemnity under a clause of the agreement for some of its abortive costs.Ģ.

The Claimant alleges that this was the result of breaches of the Exclusivity Agreement, and claims damages for the loss of the chance of entering into the contract at the price originally agreed, and thereby of acquiring the property at a price such that it would have been able to make a profit. Instead, some few months later, the property was sold to a third party at a higher price. The parties did not conclude a contract for the sale of the land by the end of the period, or thereafter. This action arises from a so-called exclusivity agreement, by which the Claimant and the First Defendant, who had come to terms, subject to contract, for the sale of the First Defendant's headquarters in Rochdale to the Claimant, agreed that the First Defendant would deal only with the Claimant during a period of some seven weeks.

Dandara wales download free