This was a dispute between an American television company, the claimant in the present case, and the defendant, a British distributor of cookware. The claimant sought to enter into a binding contract with the defendant on terms by which the claimant licensed the defendant`s intellectual property rights in America and Canada for a five year period, permitting the integration and promotion of the defendant`s products into three episodes of a television programme. However, issue arose relating to a possible branding conflict concerning the use of the words ” Master Chef” in relation to Gordon Ramsay, who was linked to the programme. The main issues in the cfonflict were whether a binding contract had actually existed between the parties.The claimant took legal actions, claiming that there was a communicated acceptance by the defendant in relation to the memo by conduct and thereafter as the defendant recognised when acknowledging its obligation to pay.
On the other hand, the defendant submitted that no contract had been reached between the parties and, therefore, the claim was unsucessful. The defendant submitted that the memo had not actually been signed by its representative, F.
Further, and therefore there had been no binding contract, either on the deal memo or otherwise, and that, even if there had been such a contract, it was subject to a condition precedent that was not fulfilled. The main points were:
(i) whether the claimant had signed the memo after it had been returned by the defendant;
(ii) whether the claimant’s conduct had amounted to acceptance of the memo; and
(iii) what the branding term meant.
The claim was successful