Blue vs Ashley
(2017) EWHC 1928 (Comm)
Case Summary
[Agreement]
Facts
The case revolved around a conversation in a pub between Mike Ashley, owner of Sports Direct, and Jeffrey Blue, an investment banker. Blue claimed that Ashley promised to pay him £15 million if he could help raise Sports Direct’s share price to £8. Blue argued that he had done so and sought to enforce the agreement. The conversation was casual, involving drinks, and took place in an informal setting.
Issues
1. Was there a valid and enforceable contract formed during the pub conversation?
2. Did the parties have an intention to create legal relations, or was it merely a casual, non-binding statement made in jest?
Principle
For an agreement to be enforceable, there must be a meeting of the minds with a clear intention to create legal relations. The context and setting in which the agreement is made are critical in assessing the seriousness of the parties’ intentions. Casual or social agreements often lack the formality necessary to create binding contracts.
Judgement
The High Court dismissed Blue’s claim, ruling that no enforceable contract had been formed. The court found that the conversation in the pub was informal and lacked the serious intent required for a binding contract. Justice Leggatt emphasized that the atmosphere was one of joking and banter, which did not suggest that a genuine contractual obligation was intended. The promise was considered too vague, made in a context that was clearly not serious, and lacked essential terms that would make it legally enforceable. The case underscored the principle that, in informal and social settings, a high threshold must be met to demonstrate an intention to create legal relations.
Ishika Tanwar
Comments