Commercial Law Master

For the first dispute of withholding payments due to Gilfil plc, the company can proceed against Tryan in the England &amp. Wales High Court (commercial) without approaching the respective county court since value of claim would exceed 25,000. See relevant case Dalkia Utilities Services Plc v Celtech International Ltd [2006]1
Civil cases at first instance are heard in the County Courts (for minor claims) or the High Court, which is divided into three divisions: Queen’s Bench, Family and Chancery. Cases may be appealed to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division). Cases may be appealed from the County Court to the High Court2.
For the third issue of Gilfil plc having found their suppliers Eliot Electrical contractors infringing their exclusive and patented design of Phoebus brand. in the name of Pharos, they may file a suit against them in the respective Patent County court. See case 3 Gilfil plc may also implead Barton and Tryan for having sold duplicated version of their Phoebus brand.
For the issue of negligent delivery of goods by the carriers, Gilfil plc may file a suit against them in the county court or High court depending up on the value of the claim. In the event of claim exceeding 25000, they can be made a party in the case they are filing against Tryan.
Dispute resolutions
As for withholding of payment for bills for which goods have been satisfactorily supplied, clause 3(2) of the contract says that order shall be placed on a monthly basis for the entire duration of the contract. The buyer having failed to do so, the seller had every right to repudiate the contract for the reasons of breach. But the seller has not given 30 days notice of its intention to cancel the contract as provided in clause 11 (1) of the contract. It only says ‘may" and not "shall" which means notice is not mandatory in the event of a breach. Clause 11(2) will not apply since it is attracted only if there has been no breach in which case notice is construed as mandatory by the words "shall". Clause 5(6) of the contract says that payment shall not prejudice the right of the buyer. In the first place there was a breach on the part of the buyer by failure to place orders because of which the seller later declines to supply for having up other contracts. The breach though may be due to restructuring, the buyer can not invoke "force majeure" clause nor had they notified the seller about their intention not to place orders temporarily. Where as clause 5(6) payment of any bill does not affect buyer’s right under the contract, they have no case to withhold payment of the bills duly supplied. Even if it happens to be the bill goods of which have been damaged in rain, the buyer has no right to do so due to insurance clause. And even otherwise, they failed to receive the goods when it arrived and carriers have done the best possible option available to them, though