![CA-2024-001949 & CA-2024-001935 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1212](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_Sjvxvlx.png){kind=logo}
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
CA-2024-001949 & CA-2024-001935 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1212
Fecha: 02-Oct-2025
The Commission Contract
The Commission Contract
At the same time a Commission Contract was concluded between Uniserve and Mr Popeck/Caramel under which Uniserve agreed to pay a commission on each shipment of masks, calculated by reference to the date that each shipment arrived in the United Kingdom and was cleared by customs. The contract contained an acknowledgement by Mr Popeck/Caramel ‘that this Agreement does not represent a commitment by Uniserve to purchase any Goods from the Supplier’ (i.e. Hitex).
- Heading
- LORD JUSTICE MALES
- The parties
- Background
- The Supply Contract
- The Commission Contract
- Performance of the contract
- Hitex’s claim
- The judgment
- The grounds of appeal
- Deciding a case on grounds not argued
- The issues on the appeal
- Was Uniserve entitled to rescind the supply contract for misrepresentation?
- Was Uniserve entitled to terminate the supply contract?
- Was Hitex entitled to damages for non-acceptance of the goods?
- Was the judge wrong to assess damages as he did?
- Conclusions