Below is a free essay on "Case Brief" from Anti Essays, your source for free research papers, essays,

and
term paper examples.
Title:

Baird

Textile

Citation:

Holdings

Ltd.

[2001]

Plaintiff:
Court:

of

&

Civil

plc
274

Holdings

&

Appeal

Spencer

Civ

Textile

Marks
Court

Marks

EWCA

Baird

Defendant:

Ltd

Spencer

Division

in

plc

England

and

Wales

Facts:
(Plaintiff) Baird Textile Holdings Ltd is a supplier of clothing to (Defendant) Marks & Spencer.

The

plaintiff

had

been

supplier

to

the

defendant

for

nearly

30

years.

The plaintiff that the defendant had stopped all supply agreements without prior notice on October
19th

1999.

Also in accordance to the plaintiffs terms, there was a contract between them (the plaintiffs) and
Marks & Spencer plc (the defendant), the plaintiff wanted to claim damages because any arrangement
that is to be terminated should have the duration of 3 years prior notice. The plaintiff agreed to the
fact

that

there

was

The

(1)

no

express

plaintiffs

contract

between

claims

The

two

were

principle

(2)

the

companies.

based
of

on;
Estoppels.

The

Contract.

Issues:
Is the long term good relationship between the two companies considered to be a legal contract
between

them?

Was

there

discussion

on

justification

of

contract?

Was there an agreement on the details of the relationship that contained sufficient certainty on the
establishment

of

contract?

Result:
The claim made by the plaintiff had failed since the judges decided that the parties did not appear to
have

any
Appeal

by

the

legal
plaintiff

was

relations
not

allowed

but

intended.
a

cross-appeal

was.

Reasons:
Precedent from the case Combe v Combe [1951] 2 KB 215 shows that a promissory estoppel cannot
create a cause of action. In this case, the wife claimed that the husband was estopped, or prevented
from paying her 100 per year although he promised her to make the payment. The wifes claim
failed.
According to the judgment of the Vice Chancellor and Mance LJ, there is no prospect of the claim
succeeding unless the House of Lords modify the law.

Judge Mance LJ..