CA-2024-001949 & CA-2024-001935 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1212
Fecha: 02-Oct-2025
The Supply Contract
The Supply Contract
Although dated 21st April 2020, the Supply Contract was signed on behalf of Hitex on 23rd April and by Uniserve on 23rd or 24th April, only after Majlan had reported the results of its inspection on 23rd April. It provided for the supply of 80 million ‘Type IIR Surgical Disposable Fluid Resistant Masks’, in accordance with an attached specification, packed in cartons containing 50 boxes with each box containing 50 masks, for delivery ex works, to be collected from Hitex’s factory in Jordan. The price was US $0.30 per mask.
The agreed delivery schedule was as follows:
Date | Quantity of masks |
28th April | 6 million |
5th May | 5 million |
12th May | 5 million |
19th May | 5 million |
26th May | 5 million |
2nd June | 7 million |
9th June | 7 million |
16th June | 7 million |
23rd June | 7 million |
30th June | 7 million |
7th July | 7 million |
14th July | 7 million |
21st July | 5 million |
The contract provided that the dates for delivery were of the essence, meaning that Uniserve would be entitled to terminate the contract (and, if appropriate, claim damages) if any of the delivery dates were not met. However, while time was of the essence as regards Hitex’s obligation to have the masks ready for delivery, it was not of the essence as regards Uniserve’s obligation to collect the masks on the stated delivery dates.
The contract also contained an entire agreement clause excluding liability for non-fraudulent pre-contractual representations.
The contract was expressly governed by the law of England and Wales.
- 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