The defendants obtained a cheaper price for computers from 3Com by telling the distributor that the computers were intended for market X. They were sold in market Y for a higher price. The evidence was also that 3Com couldn't have sold the computers at the higher price. Defendants were held liable for the extra profit.
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Tettenborn
Sent: November 23, 2007 6:27 AM
Subject: deceit: damages and account
A nice little case in the English QBD that may have passed list members by.
The makers of Renault cars operated a discount scheme in favour of members of BALPA (a labour union): the scheme was operated by Fleetpro, who ordered the cars. Under the scheme orders were sent to the Renault importers: they sent them to Renault in France, whereupon as and when orders came in Renault manufactured the necessary cars and shipped them.
Fleetpro did the natural thing and ordered 217 discounted cars for ordinary customers who they knew had nothing to do with BALPA. The cars were shipped: the importers made a profit on them, but (because they gave a rebate to the dealer involved) less than the profit they would have made on cars not covered by the scheme. The importers sued Fleetpro for deceit, and won on liability. On damages, however, held:
(1) the importers had proved no loss, i.e. they hadn't proved the sales came other than as extra sales, or that they'd otherwise have persuaded customers to buy their standard (over) priced cars.
(2) There was no jurisdiction, absent a fiduciary relationship) to award an account of profits against Fleetpro. Hence the latter kept a tidy (ill-gotten?) profit.
The latter holding seems particularly interesting.
Renault UK Ltd v. FleetPro Technical Services Ltd & Anor [2007] EW 2541 (QB).
