- The Court of Appeal has recently considered the meaning of the word ‘return’ in a commercial contract relating to film delivery (European Film Bonds v Lotus Holdings LLC)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the Court of Appeal decide?
- Case details
Commercial analysis: The Court of Appeal considered whether Deputy Judge Mr Andrew Hockhauser QC was wrong in deciding that the word ‘return’ in a contract relating to film delivery referred to receipt by the recipient of the relevant materials, rather than their dispatch to a courier. The appellants claimed that the use of the phrases ‘delivered’ ‘physically delivered’ and ‘received’ suggested that ‘return’ should have a different and discreet meaning and since the use of the word ‘return’ is ambiguous, commercial common sense should prevail to give the appellants the benefit of a less onerous time limit for returning the materials. The Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court’s decision that ‘return’ meant receipt by the recipient, noting that there was no ambiguity in the use of the word ‘return’ in the context of the contractual arrangements in question. Written by Anna Lintner, barrister at 39 Essex.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial