{"id":14109,"date":"2023-07-08T15:45:44","date_gmt":"2023-07-08T15:45:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/?p=14109"},"modified":"2023-11-23T09:45:04","modified_gmt":"2023-11-23T14:45:04","slug":"case-summary-huyton-v-cremer-1999-1-lloyds-rep-620","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-huyton-v-cremer-1999-1-lloyds-rep-620","title":{"rendered":"Case Summary: Huyton v Cremer [1999] 1 Lloyd\u2019s Rep 620"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"h-legal-principles-and-key-points\"><strong>Legal Principles and Key Points<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>In the case of Huyton v Cremer [1999] 1 Lloyd\u2019s Rep 620, it was established that whilst the test to establish the causation for economic duress is the \u2018but for\u2019 test, this is the minimum required. Illegitimate pressure must be a sufficiently significant cause.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Facts of Huyton v Cremer [1999] 1 Lloyd\u2019s Rep 620<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Huyton (C) entered into a contract with Cremer (D)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The C agreed to buy wheat from the D, and payment would be made in cash<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>But C refused to pay due to discrepancies in the documents D provided<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>D argued C waived their right to reject documents when the cargo was accepted, demanding<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>When C refused to pay, D claimed they were in breach of contract due to refusal of payment for already accepted cargo<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>C counter-argued, saying D committed a repudiatory breach by failing to remedy the defective documents<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>D claimed arbitration but said they would withdraw from such if C paid for the D\u2019s new documents, which they did<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Despite C\u2019s payment, D pursued arbitration, C sought an injunction to prevent this<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>D argued their arbitration withdrawal was not binding due to the lack of consideration, nor was it binding due to economic duress<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Issues in Huyton v Cremer [1999] 1 Lloyd\u2019s Rep 620<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Was there consideration present for the arbitration withdrawal to be binding?<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Was there illegitimate pressure applied upon D which would render the arbitration withdrawal not binding under economic duress?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Held by the High Court (Queen\u2019s Bench Division)<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Found in favour of the C, Huyton. Consideration was found in the compromise of the parties (withdrawing for the payment of new documents), and illegitimate pressure was not found to be a significant cause for the D withdrawing their proceedings.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Justice Mance<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Citing the judgment of Lord Goff in \u2018The Evia Luck\u2019 [1992], Justice Mance noted the requirements for economic duress:<\/p><div id=\"caree-1014295752\" class=\"caree-within-the-content caree-entity-placement\" style=\"margin-left: auto;margin-right: auto;text-align: center;\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/10\/MRF-169650-in-article-336x280-1.png\" alt=\"\"  srcset=\"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/10\/MRF-169650-in-article-336x280-1.png 448w, https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/10\/MRF-169650-in-article-336x280-1-300x250.png 300w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 448px) 100vw, 448px\" width=\"448\" height=\"373\"  style=\"display: inline-block;\" \/><\/div>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>\u201cthere were two basic ingredients of duress of this character: (i) illegitimate pressure by one party (ii) constituting a significant cause inducing the other party to act as he did\u201d [241]<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Looking at the first requirement, in the present case, refusal to pay did not amount to illegitimated pressure<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>\u201cCremer had no continuing right after 19 or alternatively 23 January 1996 either to present conforming documents and to claim payment of the price or, if it be material, to require payment of the price or any equivalent sum by Huyton on any other basis \u2026 It follows from these conclusions that Cremer is unable to establish, in any shape or form, the illegitimate pressure on which it relies in support of its claim that the agreement of 6\u20137 February 1996 is voidable for duress\u201d [247]<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>As to the second requirement:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>\u201cThe minimum basic test of subjective causation in economic duress ought, it appears to me, to be a \u2018but for\u2019 test.\u201d [250]<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>\u201cThreats to the person are, by definition, male fide acts. Economic duress \u2026 embraces situations where the party applying what can, at least with hindsight, be shown to have been economic pressure held the view quite reasonably at the time that he was entitled to do so. There is, also \u2026 a major difference between the substantive test of causation in cases of threats to the person and in cases of economic duress.\u201d [252]<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Citing Barton v Armstrong [1976], the burden of proof shall be with the party seeking relief<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>\u201cthe law normally treats the party seeking relief in respect of a breach of contract or seeking to set aside a bargain on grounds, such as innocent misrepresentation, as under a legal onus to prove his case on causation.\u201d [253]<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>In the present case, Justice Mance did not see it as the fault of the C that the D felt pressured<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>\u201cEven assuming \u2026 that Huyton was in breach or threatened breach of contract imposes on Huyton an initial factual onus to show that Cremer was not thereby caused to enter into the agreement of 6\u20137 February 1996, it seems to me that, once Cremer&#8217;s misconceptions are taken into account, the onus shifts to Cremer to show that it would still have entered into that agreement, aside from such misconceptions, simply on the basis of Huyton&#8217;s breach or threatened breach of contract. I do not think that this is established.\u201d [256-257]<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Legal Principles and Key Points Facts of Huyton v Cremer [1999] 1 Lloyd\u2019s Rep 620 Issues in Huyton v Cremer [1999] 1 Lloyd\u2019s Rep 620 Held by the High Court (Queen\u2019s Bench Division) Justice Mance Citing the judgment of Lord Goff in \u2018The Evia Luck\u2019 [1992], Justice Mance noted the requirements for economic duress: Looking [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":13103,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[23],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-14109","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-case-summaries","8":"entry"},"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v24.4 (Yoast SEO v27.3) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Case Summary: Huyton v Cremer [1999] 1 Lloyd\u2019s Rep 620 | Careerinlaw.net | UK<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"In the case of Huyton v Cremer [1999] 1 Lloyd\u2019s Rep 620, it was established that whilst the test to establish the causation for economic duress is the \u2018but for\u2019 test, this is the minimum required.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-huyton-v-cremer-1999-1-lloyds-rep-620\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Case Summary: Huyton v Cremer [1999] 1 Lloyd\u2019s Rep 620\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In the case of Huyton v Cremer [1999] 1 Lloyd\u2019s Rep 620, it was established that whilst the test to establish the causation for economic duress is the \u2018but for\u2019 test, this is the minimum required.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-huyton-v-cremer-1999-1-lloyds-rep-620\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Careerinlaw.net | UK\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-07-08T15:45:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-11-23T14:45:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/06\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1920\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1080\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Boris Ignachkov\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Boris Ignachkov\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-huyton-v-cremer-1999-1-lloyds-rep-620#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-huyton-v-cremer-1999-1-lloyds-rep-620\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Boris Ignachkov\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/8fdee476362bf382fd21700bd5a45bfa\"},\"headline\":\"Case Summary: Huyton v Cremer [1999] 1 Lloyd\u2019s Rep 620\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-07-08T15:45:44+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-11-23T14:45:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-huyton-v-cremer-1999-1-lloyds-rep-620\"},\"wordCount\":705,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-huyton-v-cremer-1999-1-lloyds-rep-620#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2023\\\/06\\\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Case Summaries\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-huyton-v-cremer-1999-1-lloyds-rep-620\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-huyton-v-cremer-1999-1-lloyds-rep-620\",\"name\":\"Case Summary: Huyton v Cremer [1999] 1 Lloyd\u2019s Rep 620 | Careerinlaw.net | UK\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-huyton-v-cremer-1999-1-lloyds-rep-620#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-huyton-v-cremer-1999-1-lloyds-rep-620#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2023\\\/06\\\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-07-08T15:45:44+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-11-23T14:45:04+00:00\",\"description\":\"In the case of Huyton v Cremer [1999] 1 Lloyd\u2019s Rep 620, it was established that whilst the test to establish the causation for economic duress is the \u2018but for\u2019 test, this is the minimum required.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-huyton-v-cremer-1999-1-lloyds-rep-620#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-huyton-v-cremer-1999-1-lloyds-rep-620\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-huyton-v-cremer-1999-1-lloyds-rep-620#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2023\\\/06\\\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2023\\\/06\\\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg\",\"width\":1920,\"height\":1080,\"caption\":\"Case Summary Careerinlaw Cover Photo\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-huyton-v-cremer-1999-1-lloyds-rep-620#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Case Summary: Huyton v Cremer [1999] 1 Lloyd\u2019s Rep 620\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/\",\"name\":\"Careerinlaw.net | UK\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Careerinlaw.net | UK\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2023\\\/12\\\/Careerinlawnet-United-Kingdom-Cover-Photo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2023\\\/12\\\/Careerinlawnet-United-Kingdom-Cover-Photo.png\",\"width\":1920,\"height\":1080,\"caption\":\"Careerinlaw.net | UK\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/8fdee476362bf382fd21700bd5a45bfa\",\"name\":\"Boris Ignachkov\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/33b22c61b285e32cec7b03ee9d87678f2b2f6aeb3d82f210db749e350d39e0a4?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/33b22c61b285e32cec7b03ee9d87678f2b2f6aeb3d82f210db749e350d39e0a4?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/33b22c61b285e32cec7b03ee9d87678f2b2f6aeb3d82f210db749e350d39e0a4?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Boris Ignachkov\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/author\\\/boris\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Case Summary: Huyton v Cremer [1999] 1 Lloyd\u2019s Rep 620 | Careerinlaw.net | UK","description":"In the case of Huyton v Cremer [1999] 1 Lloyd\u2019s Rep 620, it was established that whilst the test to establish the causation for economic duress is the \u2018but for\u2019 test, this is the minimum required.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-huyton-v-cremer-1999-1-lloyds-rep-620","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Case Summary: Huyton v Cremer [1999] 1 Lloyd\u2019s Rep 620","og_description":"In the case of Huyton v Cremer [1999] 1 Lloyd\u2019s Rep 620, it was established that whilst the test to establish the causation for economic duress is the \u2018but for\u2019 test, this is the minimum required.","og_url":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-huyton-v-cremer-1999-1-lloyds-rep-620","og_site_name":"Careerinlaw.net | UK","article_published_time":"2023-07-08T15:45:44+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-11-23T14:45:04+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1920,"height":1080,"url":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/06\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Boris Ignachkov","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Boris Ignachkov","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-huyton-v-cremer-1999-1-lloyds-rep-620#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-huyton-v-cremer-1999-1-lloyds-rep-620"},"author":{"name":"Boris Ignachkov","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#\/schema\/person\/8fdee476362bf382fd21700bd5a45bfa"},"headline":"Case Summary: Huyton v Cremer [1999] 1 Lloyd\u2019s Rep 620","datePublished":"2023-07-08T15:45:44+00:00","dateModified":"2023-11-23T14:45:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-huyton-v-cremer-1999-1-lloyds-rep-620"},"wordCount":705,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-huyton-v-cremer-1999-1-lloyds-rep-620#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/06\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg","articleSection":["Case Summaries"],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-huyton-v-cremer-1999-1-lloyds-rep-620","url":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-huyton-v-cremer-1999-1-lloyds-rep-620","name":"Case Summary: Huyton v Cremer [1999] 1 Lloyd\u2019s Rep 620 | Careerinlaw.net | UK","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-huyton-v-cremer-1999-1-lloyds-rep-620#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-huyton-v-cremer-1999-1-lloyds-rep-620#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/06\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg","datePublished":"2023-07-08T15:45:44+00:00","dateModified":"2023-11-23T14:45:04+00:00","description":"In the case of Huyton v Cremer [1999] 1 Lloyd\u2019s Rep 620, it was established that whilst the test to establish the causation for economic duress is the \u2018but for\u2019 test, this is the minimum required.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-huyton-v-cremer-1999-1-lloyds-rep-620#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-huyton-v-cremer-1999-1-lloyds-rep-620"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-huyton-v-cremer-1999-1-lloyds-rep-620#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/06\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/06\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg","width":1920,"height":1080,"caption":"Case Summary Careerinlaw Cover Photo"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-huyton-v-cremer-1999-1-lloyds-rep-620#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Case Summary: Huyton v Cremer [1999] 1 Lloyd\u2019s Rep 620"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#website","url":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/","name":"Careerinlaw.net | UK","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#organization","name":"Careerinlaw.net | UK","url":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/12\/Careerinlawnet-United-Kingdom-Cover-Photo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/12\/Careerinlawnet-United-Kingdom-Cover-Photo.png","width":1920,"height":1080,"caption":"Careerinlaw.net | UK"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#\/schema\/person\/8fdee476362bf382fd21700bd5a45bfa","name":"Boris Ignachkov","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/33b22c61b285e32cec7b03ee9d87678f2b2f6aeb3d82f210db749e350d39e0a4?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/33b22c61b285e32cec7b03ee9d87678f2b2f6aeb3d82f210db749e350d39e0a4?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/33b22c61b285e32cec7b03ee9d87678f2b2f6aeb3d82f210db749e350d39e0a4?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Boris Ignachkov"},"url":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/author\/boris"}]}},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14109","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14109"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14109\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/13103"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14109"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14109"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14109"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}