A door company has been refused a court order to compel a longstanding supplier to continue providing it with products.
Vibrant Doors Ltd claimed that after years of business between the two firms, its supplier Rohden UK Ltd suddenly terminated their agreement, without reasonable notice.
Vibrant claimed this was unlawful and damaged its business.
However, Rohden said the relationship between the companies was informal, with a series of individual agreements rather than a standing supply contract.
Vibrant sought an injunction compelling Rohden to resume supplies for a limited period until the matter could be decided at a full trial. The would allow it to recover from the shock of the arrangement coming to a sudden end.
Rohden said an injunction would be too restrictive on its ability to set prices.
The judge said the court had to balance the risk of injustice to Vibrant if it was successful at trial, but the injunction had not been granted, against the equivalent risk to Rohden if the injunction was granted and then it won at trial.
The court was not confident that the two companies could continue their working arrangement as it had been before the relationship ended. One party was unwilling, and some terms of an injunction might be considered onerous.
It ruled that the relief sought by Vibrant wasn’t practical and couldn’t be made to work. The injunction was refused.
Please contact us for more information about the issues raised in this article or any aspect of contract law on email@example.com or 02920 34 55 11