Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd
English contract law case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd [1914] UKHL 1 (1 July 1914) is an English contract law case, concerning the extent to which damages may be sought for failure to perform of a contract when a sum is fixed in a contract. It held that only if a sum is of an unconscionable amount will it be considered penal and unenforceable. The legal standing of this case has been superseded by the Supreme Court's 2015 ruling in the combined cases of Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi and ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.[1]
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd | |
---|---|
Court | House of Lords |
Decided | July 1, 1914 (1914-07-01) |
Citation(s) | [1914] UKHL 1, [1915] AC 79 |
Keywords | |
Termination, penalty clause |
The case should not be confused with Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd,[2] which held that the same resale price maintenance practice was unenforceable against a third party reseller as a matter of the English rule of privity of contract.