With the growing nature of commercial transactions, many cause laws have however emerged. These illustrate the various relationships between different parties into a commercial relationship. Below are examples of commercial laws.
Aldi Stores v Holmes Buildings England (2003)
This was a case in which there was a concern in the limitations to the issues regarding negligence in the claims against engineering firms on consultancy issues. In this case, Hugh was however had instruction by his instructors in regard to the claim of $30 million. Accordingly, Holmes had entered a building and designing contract with Laporte for the building of some two stores (Aldi Stores) in 1994. As per the agreement of the contract, Larporte was to construct the stores before letting them to the Homes building on a lease of 25 years. The work was completed in 1995 and the Larporte had the lease with Holmes. However, cracks occurred due to bunds containing some chemical sludges. Holmes proceeded to the court for a claim of damages. It was held that Larporte building company was at the discretion of awarding damages to the Holme building company because the entitlement of their original contract had been broken.
Three Rivers DV v the Bank of England, England (2004)
This was a case in concern of the basic and statutory responsibilities relating to the Bank (of England) which was to be a relation to the collapse of the BCCI in 1991. In this case, the Three. Rivers District Council was the respondent while the Bank of England was the Appellant. In 1991, the bank had collapsed with high losses to the depositors (customers). Before then, the bank had liabilities exceeding its assets.
In England however, there is a supervisory obligation delegated to the Bank of England for all the financial institutions as well as banks. However, as per section, 1(4) in the England Banking Act of 1987, the bank of England is to be relieved of all the liabilities of a bank which have omitted the requirements as done in act of discharge of its acts as long as such acts are not on bad fault. Before the collapse of the BCCI, it had malicious ran into activities that were not bound to be in correspondent with the Banking Act. However, in the judgment of the case, the BBCI was held responsible for insolvency due to the negligence of the rules ascribed to all banks in England’s Banking Act. It was therefore supposed to pay it, customers, for the same loss that had been incurred from the bank.
Chellaram & Anor v Chellaram & Ors, England (2002)
The defendants and the claimants of this case were all members of the Chellaram family. This was a commercial case in which its claimants were seeking relief in the breach of trust regarding the various settlements. To the claimants, they were the legal beneficiaries of the settlements constructed by their late grandfather which were under a trust held by their uncle. However, the building was established by their grandfather, and that the uncle who was acting as their trust had breached the same trust through subletting these settlements to other persons without the provision of the accounts to the same transaction. It was held that the holders of the trust (Chelleran family), who were the legal owners of the settlement property and there was no discretion that would be legally binding in their uncle letting the settlements to a third party. The court, therefore, demanded a full compensation of the property to the holders of the trust.
Yokos Oil Co v Financial Services Authority London Stock Exchange, England (2000)
In this case, the Yukos Oil Company had moved to the court to be given an injunction in regard to its persuasion against the financial Services Authority (FSA) in trying to stop the formal trade on the shares from starting. In this case, Yukos Oil complained of any sale of the Rosneft equity was equivalent to laundering of the money in regard to the England proceeds of crime Act 2002 (Poca) since the Yokos Oil Company would lose 70% of its value for the seizure of its main business. However, it was held that, according to the law, there was no default in the trade on Roseneft equity. Yokos Oil was liable for any upcoming loss.
Marubeni Hong Kong and South China Ltd v The Mongolian Government, England (2004)
This case was concerning a discharge in the foreign guarantee of the government as per the rule found in Brunskill v Holme. Hong Kong Company carried export and import business transactions. It entered into deferred payments of agreement of the Buyan Company in Mongolia. As per the agreement of the contract, however, the Hong Kong Company deserved full right of payment by the Buyan Company.
Work cited
Matrix Chambers. Commercial Law. 2007. Web.