Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Robert Howe Esq, QC and Mark Vinall Esq (instructed by Harbottle & Lewis LLP) for the Claimant Duncan McCall Esq, QC and Benjamin Pilling Esq (instructed by Bird & Bird LLP) for the Defendants Hearing dates: 30th June 2009 � 3rd July 2009; 22nd July 2009; ____________________
i) What were Gamecock's delivery obligations under the terms of the Agreement? (This was a question of construction, in particular of the definition of "Delivery Dates" in the Agreement.)
ii) In what circumstances was CDV entitled to exercise a right of partial termination of the Agreement? (This gave rise to several questions of construction, in particular of clause 3.1(b) of the Agreement.)
iii) Was CDV entitled to exercise a right of partial termination in respect of each of Dementium , Velvet Assassin and Mushroom Men ?
iv) Did CDV lose its right of partial termination through affirmation or waiver, either in relation to individual Products or more generally?
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.