Click here: Trademark Laws in the West Indies: Click here and see a recent judgement. Levy, Ian and Levy, Cecelia v Atherton, Julie et al Case Number: 2017CD 00237 Presiding Judge: The Hon. Miss Justice Carol Edwards Neutral Citation: [2018] JMCC Comm 34 Date of Delivery: 23.05.2018 PDF icon Levy, Ian and Levy, Cecelia v Atherton, Julie et al.pdf Contract - Dispute as to nature and validity of contract - Contract referring to loan/eqity - Whether monies advanced was for a loan or an equity investment - Whether the written contract was so ambigious as to call into question the contra proferentem rule - Whether contract in breach of the Moneylending Act. Contract - Sums paid under an earlier agreement - Later agreement superseding the earlier agreement by incorporating its terms - Whether consideration past.

Levy, Ian and Levy, Cecelia v Atherton, Julie et al

Case Number: 

2017CD 00237

Presiding Judge: 

The Hon. Miss Justice Carol Edwards

Neutral Citation: 

[2018] JMCC Comm 34

Date of Delivery: 

23.05.2018

 Levy, Ian and Levy, Cecelia v Atherton, Julie et al.pdf

Contract - Dispute as to nature and validity of contract - Contract referring to loan/eqity - Whether monies advanced was for a loan or an equity investment - Whether the written contract was so ambigious as to call into question the contra proferentem rule - Whether contract in breach of the Moneylending Act.

Contract - Sums paid under an earlier agreement - Later agreement superseding the earlier agreement by incorporating its terms - Whether consideration past.

The following excerpts are helpful: 




1.  Although evidence was given 
of discussions between the parties prior to the signing of the 28 February 
agreement, I need only make reference again to paragraph 25 of the agreement 
which reads:
2.  “Be it agreed that this agreement supersedes any previous 
agreements signed between Julie & Richard Atherton et al 
Refreshing Ideas LLC and Ian & Cecelia Levy.”
“26) Be it also agreed that this agreement is subject to an over-riding 
agreement to be drawn up by an Attorney-at-law under the employ 
of Ian & Cecelia Levy at the earliest convenience.”

This is the unusual uncertain terminology  relied upon by the Defendants to abscond with the benefit obtained by way of matching intention  and positive action as performed by the parties and with a loan payment made by the defendants. The document read in its entirety does not disclose any doubt or any uncertain terms or misconstrued intention.   The Levy 's reserved the right to reduce the signed contract into wording subject to their lawyer's further approval "if it was deemed necessary."  It is a thorough and complete review of a loan agreement between the parties. 

The last point about Term  26 is that it really is optional. In any event, the parties agreed to sign two agreements and of there was a further over arching, over riding  agreement, it would also have to be signed by the parties as confirmed by current UK law on amendments to contracts if any amendments ensued. 

The recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Globe Motors Inc., et al. v TRW Lucas Varity Electric Steering Ltd., et al. [2016] EWCA Civ 396, considered the impact of similar clauses, in that case one which provided “Entire agreement; amendment: This Agreement, which includes the Appendices hereto, is the only agreement between the Parties relating to the subject matter hereof. It can only be amended by a written document which (i) specifically refers to the provision of this Agreement to be amended and (ii) is signed by both parties.”