![CA-2024-002472 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1407](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_Sjvxvlx.png){kind=logo}
Conclusions
Conclusions
In my judgment we are bound by Peyman v Lanjani to hold that there was no election to affirm in this case because Mr Ensor did not know that URE had a right to elect before his conversation with Burges Salmon on 5th November 2018. Once he knew, the contract was promptly terminated.
URE is entitled to recover the termination payment of £3,946,861.56 which the judge awarded.
I would therefore dismiss the appeal.
LORD JUSTICE ZACAROLI:
I agree.
LORD JUSTICE MILES:
I also agree.
- Heading
- LORD JUSTICE MALES
- The background
- The contract
- Rollout of AMR meters
- The amalgamation
- Breakdown of the parties’ relationship
- Termination of the contract
- The summary judgment application
- The judgment
- The issues on appeal
- Is URE’s case of ‘deemed knowledge’ open on appeal?
- Election and estoppel
- Peyman v Lanjani
- Criticisms of Peyman v Lanjani
- Mitigations of Peyman v Lanjani
- Deemed knowledge of contractual terms?
- Knowledge and understanding
- Obviously available means of knowledge
- Lapse of time
- Quantum
- Conclusions