99:
though Mr
Galbraith was not told. It said ‘To be collected by repairer – excess £25 and contribution £4 10s to towing’. And ‘N.B. The insured’s confirmation should be obtained concerning these items.’ The work was done, Mr Galbraith collected the car, the garage billed the insurer, but Mr Galbraith did not agree the repairs were satisfactory and so the insurers did not pay. The garage sued Mr Galbraith in the County Court. The insurance company went insolvent. The repairers agreed they had looked to the insurers for payment generally.
39:
119:
Now, the inference of such an implied contract can, in my judgment, only be drawn if it is a matter of necessary inference, that is to say, if it is an inference which the business realities of the situation really make necessary to make sense of the dealings between the parties so that they can be
98:
policy, said he would pay £25 on any claim, and the insurance company would cover the rest. The garage's quote was labour costs of £165, and spare parts coming up to £373, with the excess deducted. The insurers’ assessor completed a document on 21 July 1970 authorising repair only at a lower sum,
111:
Cairns LJ held there was an implied contract between the garage and Mr
Galbraith. But the facts did not show the owner contracted to pay anything beyond £25. Therefore, the extra £4 10s could not be recovered. It was not necessary to imply a contract, beyond the £25 excess that Mr Galbraith had
102:
Croydon County Court Judge held there were two contracts, one between the insurers and the garage in the 21 July document, and two an implied contract between the garage and the owner for payment if the insurers did not come up. Therefore, the owner could be liable for the full sum.
396:
314:
255:
391:
170:
17:
115:
Buckley LJ gave a concurring judgment, finding there was no evidence for an inference for implying a contract to pay over the excess.
401:
153:
226:
241:
214:
199:
284:
349:
338:
79:
184:
326:
269:
146:
82:
case, concerning to what extent enrichment of the defendant must be at the expense of the claimant.
139:
231:
8:
304:
299:
289:
94:
after a collision, because his insurer had gone insolvent. Mr
Galbraith's comprehensive
204:
274:
189:
90:
Brown and Davis sued Mr
Galbraith for their price in repairing Mr Galbraith's
385:
91:
131:
95:
38:
245:
383:
147:
172:BP Exploration Co (Libya) Ltd v Hunt (No 2)
154:
140:
37:
397:Court of Appeal (England and Wales) cases
257:Banque Belge pour l’Etranger v Hambrouck
161:
14:
384:
227:Roxborough v Rothmans of Pall Mall Ltd
242:Kingstreet Invest Ltd v New Brunswick
135:
124:Sachs LJ gave a concurring judgment.
215:Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Birmingham CC
200:Trustee of FC Jones and Son v Jones
24:
392:English unjust enrichment case law
25:
413:
285:Investment Trust Companies v HMRC
120:implemented in a sensible manner.
290:[2012] EWHC 458 (Ch)
402:1972 in United Kingdom case law
361:
13:
1:
373:
350:English unjust enrichment law
339:English unjust enrichment law
80:English unjust enrichment law
185:Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd
7:
327:Brown and Davis v Galbraith
305:[2014] EWCA Civ 360
270:FII Group Litigation v HMRC
127:
106:
75:Brown and Davis v Galbraith
32:Brown and Davis v Galbraith
18:Brown and Davis v Galbraith
10:
418:
335:
323:
311:
296:
281:
266:
252:
238:
223:
211:
196:
181:
167:
66:
61:
53:
45:
36:
31:
355:
205:[1996] EWCA 1324
85:
67:Expense of the claimant
275:[2012] UKSC 19
190:[1988] UKHL 12
122:
232:[2001] HCA 68
117:
300:Relfo Ltd v Varsani
162:Sources for expense
112:undertaken to pay.
345:
344:
71:
70:
16:(Redirected from
409:
368:
365:
258:
173:
156:
149:
142:
133:
132:
78:1 WLR 997 is an
41:
29:
28:
21:
417:
416:
412:
411:
410:
408:
407:
406:
382:
381:
376:
371:
367:1 WLR 997, 1006
366:
362:
358:
346:
341:
331:
319:
307:
292:
277:
262:
256:
248:
234:
219:
207:
192:
177:
171:
163:
160:
130:
109:
88:
49:Court of Appeal
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
415:
405:
404:
399:
394:
380:
379:
375:
372:
370:
369:
359:
357:
354:
353:
352:
343:
342:
336:
333:
332:
324:
321:
320:
312:
309:
308:
297:
294:
293:
282:
279:
278:
267:
264:
263:
253:
250:
249:
239:
236:
235:
224:
221:
220:
212:
209:
208:
197:
194:
193:
182:
179:
178:
168:
165:
164:
159:
158:
151:
144:
136:
129:
126:
108:
105:
87:
84:
69:
68:
64:
63:
59:
58:
55:
51:
50:
47:
43:
42:
34:
33:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
414:
403:
400:
398:
395:
393:
390:
389:
387:
378:
377:
364:
360:
351:
348:
347:
340:
334:
329:
328:
322:
317:
316:
315:Butler v Rice
310:
306:
302:
301:
295:
291:
287:
286:
280:
276:
272:
271:
265:
260:
259:
251:
247:
244:
243:
237:
233:
229:
228:
222:
217:
216:
210:
206:
202:
201:
195:
191:
187:
186:
180:
175:
174:
166:
157:
152:
150:
145:
143:
138:
137:
134:
125:
121:
116:
113:
104:
100:
97:
93:
83:
81:
77:
76:
65:
60:
56:
52:
48:
44:
40:
35:
30:
27:
19:
363:
325:
313:
298:
283:
268:
254:
240:
225:
218:4 All ER 733
213:
198:
183:
169:
123:
118:
114:
110:
101:
89:
74:
73:
72:
26:
386:Categories
374:References
330:1 WLR 997
96:insurance
57:1 WLR 997
318:2 Ch 277
261:1 KB 321
176:2 AC 352
128:See also
107:Judgment
62:Keywords
54:Citation
246:1 SCR 3
356:Notes
303:
288:
273:
230:
203:
188:
92:Lotus
86:Facts
46:Court
337:See
388::
155:e
148:t
141:v
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
