Contractual Disputes (Technology) Case Studies

Multi-party dispute acting for a UK subsidiary of a US company

We were asked to act for the UK subsidiary of a US company which supplied polymers for the manufacture of domestic heating oil tanks.

What was the dispute about:

The manufacturer of the tanks had received a number of complaints that the tanks were leaking and sought to blame the polymer as being unfit for the purpose of manufacturing the storage tanks.


The polymer itself was originally produced by a Danish company. Our client added pigment to colour the polymer before supplying to its customers. The case involved extensive expert analysis of the composition of the polymer together with expert opinion on the significance of factors including the process of manufacture of the tanks and the design of the tanks as being the likely causes of leaking.

In addition to the technical evidence with regard to the likely cause of the tank failures, the case involved diverse legal issues including whether Danish, Norwegian or English law applied to the contract with the producer of the polymer and the effect of terms and conditions limiting liability for any loss attributable to the quality of the polymer supplied.


Our strategy:

The case raised legal issues as to whether, on a proper construction of the finance agreement, the finance company was entitled to withdraw facilities. What the client required was a swift and pragmatic solution to enable it to continue trading. The task was to negotiate termination of the finance agreement to allow the client to obtain finance from an alternative source.

 

The outcome:

The outcome achieved for the client was the return of invoices held as security by the finance company and the payment of sums due to the client from the finance company. The client duly obtained alternative finance and its business continues to thrive.

Substantial counterclaim withdrawn 

Acting for the supplier of advanced electronics for use in fully reclining business class seats being installed in trans-Atlantic aircraft.

What happened:

The client’s claim for the price was met with a substantial counterclaim alleging that delays in the progress of the project were attributable to defects in the electronic components. The case raised issues regarding responsibility for the design of the seats, the mechanical elements and the interaction with the electronic components.
 

The outcome:

The matter was resolved by a substantial payment to the client and withdrawal of the counterclaim.

Delays incurred in supply and installation of a crane

We were asked to act for a manufacturer of an overhead gantry crane supplied to a factory in the Middle East. Delays occurred in the supply and installation of the crane and the claim for payment of the price was met with a counterclaim for alleged losses resulting from the delays.

What happened:

The case raised issues with regard to the proper construction of the client’s terms excluding liability for consequential losses. 

 

The outcome:

A negotiated settlement was achieved.

Significant delays in delivery of components for onward supply

We were asked to act for a supplier of bespoke components for installation in race engines who experienced significant delays in delivery from the manufacturer of components required for onward supply to its customer.

What happened:

Delays in sourcing and delivery of the components led in turn to difficulties with the end user, including issues as to payment for components supplied and the consequences for the project to develop the race engine.   

Our strategy:

Advising the client as the matter developed, and assisting them to deal with allegations that the components did not conform to the contract specification.

The outcome:

The situation required a combination of technical evidence and legal analysis which then enabled the client to conduct negotiations with its customer with a view to securing an acceptable payment arrangement.

If you need advice and help with a dispute, contact us today.

Latest Blogs

19.03.2019

SHAREHOLDER DISPUTES ARE COMMON - OUR COMMERCIAL LITIGATION EXPERTISE CAN HELP SECURE DEALS

Making sure you have professionally drafted and agreed shareholders’ agreements in place at the outset is the best way to avoid disputes in the future.

28.02.2019

ESTATE AGENTS POSITION CLARIFIED BY THE  SUPREME COURT

On the 13th February the Supreme Court confirmed an Estate Agent's fee entitlement. After nearly ten years of a bitter battle between a developer and its estate agent, the dispute finally ended.

Cox Minhas & Co.

Catherine House, Suite B,
Harborough Road, Brixworth,
Northamptonshire,
NN6 9BX



Call Us Now
+44 (0)1604 973977

FOLLOW US:

  • LinkedIn - White Circle
  • Twitter - White Circle

Reasonable Minds is the brand name for mediation services provided through Cox Minhas.

Cox Minhas & Co. are authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulatory Authority (number 636407)

Professional rules applicable to us can be accessed at www.sra.org.uk

© 2019 Cox Minhas & Co.