This case summary of British Steel Corp v Cleveland Bridge & Engineering Co Ltd [1984] is essential for law students exploring the nuances of contract law, focusing on restitution and the enforceability of letters of intent.

  • In the case of British Steel Corp v Cleveland Bridge and Engineering Co Ltd [1984] 1 All ER 504, the courts ruled on the contract remedy of restitution and how it impacts unjust enrichment.
  • This contract case is about contract terms, letters of intent and incomplete agreements.
  • This case considered the principle of quantum meruit.

Facts of the Case British Steel Corp v Cleveland Bridge

  • D intended to contract with C therefore provided them with a letter of intent. D listed the terms such as delivery of the nodes.
  • C claimed its value after D did not pay the purchase price even though the nodes were constructed past the delivery date as requested by D.

Issues in British Steel Corp v Cleveland Bridge

  • What were the contracting terms?
  • Was the contractor entitled to the product value?

Held by High Court

  • D is liable – there was no contract formed by the letter of intent nor could the delivery date be enforced.

Robert Goff J

Heading

  • The letter of intent was not an executory contract. The terms that D provided were simply an offer accepted by C since C started and completed the work.
  • “There can be no hard and fast answer to the question whether a letter of intent will give rise to a binding agreement: everything must depend on the circumstances of the particular case. In most cases, where work is done pursuant to a request contained in a letter of intent, it will not matter whether a contract did or did not come into existence… But where, as here, one party is seeking to claim damages for breach of contract, the question whether any contract came into existence is of crucial importance.”

Performance

  • “As a matter of analysis the contract (if any) which may come into existence following a letter of intent may take one of two forms: either there may be an ordinary executory contract, under which each party assumes reciprocal obligations to the other; or there may be what is sometimes called an ‘if ‘ contract, ie a contract under which A requests B to carry out a certain performance and promises B that, if he does so, he will receive a certain performance in return, usually remuneration for his performance. The latter transaction is really no more than a standing offer which, if acted on before it lapses or is lawfully withdrawn, will result in a binding contract.”
  • Restitution applies. C was not contractually obliged to complete the work yet C finished it and did not breach the term of completing the work within a reasonable time period as requested by D – supported by obiter dicta in Courtney & Fairbairn Ltd v Tolaini Bros (Hotels) Ltd [1975] 1 All ER 716.

Significance of the Case on the Development of the Law

The British Steel Corp v Cleveland Bridge & Engineering Co Ltd [1984] case significantly impacted the understanding of contract formation and restitution in contract law. Its implications can be contextualized through its relation to several key cases:

  1. Comparison with Courtney & Fairbairn Ltd v Tolaini Brothers (Hotels) Ltd [1975]: This case also dealt with the enforceability of contracts based on preliminary agreements, similar to British Steel, where the court scrutinized the terms under letters of intent.
  2. Relation to Baird Textile Holdings Ltd v Marks & Spencer plc [2001]: This later case expanded on the principles of implied contracts and the expectations of performance under such agreements, which were initially examined in British Steel.
  3. Echoes of RTS Flexible Systems Ltd v Molkerei Alois Müller GmbH & Co KG [2010]: Here, the Supreme Court further refined the approach to contracts that are agreed upon without a formal written agreement, stressing the importance of clear terms and mutual intentions, principles that were foundational in British Steel.

Exam Questions and Answers

Below you will find answers to questions that are most commonly asked based on this case.

What are the key factors that determine whether a letter of intent is binding?

The binding nature of a letter of intent depends on the specificity of the terms and the intent of the parties involved. In RTS Flexible Systems Ltd v Molkerei Alois Müller GmbH & Co KG [2010], the Supreme Court emphasized that for a letter of intent to be binding, the agreement must include clear terms and demonstrate a mutual intention to enter into a contract. Factors such as the detail of the work scope, price, and duration can influence its enforceability.

How has the legal treatment of letters of intent evolved since this case?

Since British Steel, the treatment of letters of intent has evolved with a greater focus on the parties’ conduct and communications. The case of Clarke v Dickinson [2008] highlights that subsequent actions and exchanges between the parties can further substantiate the binding nature of such documents, especially when work commences under the terms discussed in the letter.

What are the practical implications for businesses when drafting letters of intent based on the principles established in this case?

For businesses, it’s crucial to draft letters of intent with precision, outlining the scope, terms, and limitations of the agreement. Based on British Steel principles, companies should treat these documents as potentially binding agreements and ensure they reflect only what the business is willing to commit to prior to the final contract. This approach helps prevent disputes over unintended commitments.

Exclusive Industry Scoop

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.