Question
Brewgod manufactures branded beer known for its unique hoppy taste. Boozer, a local trader, is a middleman who sells the beer to pubs and hotels. Boozer has an important exclusive (and very lucrative) contract with Wetherspoons as the sole provider of Brewgod beer. He enters into a contract with Brewgod to supply Boozer with 10,000 crates of beer, which are ultimately destined for multiple Wetherspoons across the country.
Unfortunately, a bad bout of seasonal bad weather and red mites affects the production of Brewgod’s hops. Brewgod is under the impression that it does not have to fulfil its order with Boozer now half its hops are gone (it also does not know about the Wetherspoons contract). A week before delivery was due, Brewgod informs Boozer that it can only supply a reduced amount on the condition of a substantial 20% price increase.
Boozer attempts to discuss the matter with Brewgod, but Brewgod ignores Boozer’s calls. When a meeting is finally arranged, Brewgod does not send an advance copy of the revised agreement for fear that its terms might put Boozer off re-signing and only screen shares a copy during the meeting. During a heated exchange, the representative for Brewgod becomes exasperated with what he sees as a dithering approach by Boozer and tells him that the renegotiated contract is a “take it or leave it” deal.
Despite Boozer thinking that Brewgod’s behaviour is completely out of order and the belief it was entitled to refuse to provide the beer in the first place unreasonable, Boozer reluctantly agrees to the revised amount. Significantly, Boozer has onward sales contracts including Wetherspoons (which he cannot afford to lose as a client). Boozer can only fulfil these contracts by purchasing the beer from Brewgod or the same product already available in the alcohol market at a significantly increased price. Boozer grudgingly pays 20% more for the beer and delivers it as scheduled to his clients, including Wetherspoons.
Owing to the financial pressures resulting from the damage to the hop crop, the CEO of Brewgod, Jack, is increasingly concerned with the stability of the company. Jack asks a junior employee, Brandy (who he knows has recently received a substantial amount of inheritance), if she could help safeguard the future of the company by securing her house against a loan taken by the company from Barclays Bank. Brandy agrees but six months later Brewgod defaults on its debt with the bank and Barclays seeks possession of Brandy’s house. Barclays Bank knew that Brandy was employed by Brewgod and had sent her a letter advising her to seek legal advice before agreeing to the transaction. However, Brandy declined to do so. Hearing nothing more, the bank had proceeded with the transaction. Brandy now wants to set aside the agreement with Barclays Bank. Boozer is seeking the return of the extra 20% paid to Brewgod.
With reference to academic commentary, critically discuss one or more of the legal issues raised in the scenario above.
The maximum overall word count is 1500 words. The word count includes words used in footnotes and citations, but excludes words used in the bibliography. Therefore, a bibliography must be included and citations using OSCOLA referencing.
Topics that must be covered:
• Termination of Contract
• Damages (agreed damages, specific performance and restitution)
• Remedies
• Frustration and Mistake
• Misrepresentation
• Duress and Undue Influence
• Privity of Contract
• Illegality
