Answered step by step
Verified Expert Solution
Link Copied!

Question

1 Approved Answer

In the Supreme Court MegaGames ( Appellant ) v Premier Bank( Respondent ) MegaGames Ltd is a computer game developer who have made a number

In the Supreme Court

MegaGames (Appellant) v Premier Bank(Respondent)

MegaGames Ltd is a computer game developer who have made a number of extremely popular racing games. After a number of successful releases, MegaGames decided to expand their premises and hire new staff.

MegaGames approached Premier Bank and negotiated a loan of 3,000,000. It was agreed that the loan would be repaid in three instalments of 1,000,000 with each instalment falling due on January 1st in successive years.

At first MegaGames expansion is a success and their new games sell extremely well. They are able to make the first 1,000,000 payment easily. However, their next game receives very bad reviews and the company starts to struggle financially. MegaGames are just able to afford the second year's payment of a further 1,000,000 but it is clear to Premier Bank that they are highly unlikely to be able to make the final payment in a year's time.

Premier Bank hold discussions with MegaGames and agree that MegaGames will instead pay 300,000 on January 1st. MegaGames made this payment of 300,000 on January 1st this year as agreed. MegaGames directors believe that had they been required to make payment of the full 1,000,000 the company would have been unable to pay and would have been wound up.

Premier Bank has now suffered financial problems of its own and issued proceedings claiming 700,000 from MegaGames, which Premier Bank claim remains outstanding.

In the High Court, Exemplar J held that MegaGames had failed to provide any fresh consideration in exchange for the promise by Premier Bank to accept a lesser sum and that Premier Bank was thus entitled to the outstanding 700,000.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of Exemplar J.

MegaGames now appeals to the Supreme Court, with leave, on the single ground: 1) That Exemplar J erred in not considering that the payment of 300,000 constituted a practical benefit to Premier Bank and was thus good consideration under the principle established inWilliams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd[1991] 1 QB 1. please could you help me write a moot skeleton bundle and oral presentation 1500 words each

Step by Step Solution

There are 3 Steps involved in it

Step: 1

blur-text-image

Get Instant Access to Expert-Tailored Solutions

See step-by-step solutions with expert insights and AI powered tools for academic success

Step: 2

blur-text-image

Step: 3

blur-text-image

Ace Your Homework with AI

Get the answers you need in no time with our AI-driven, step-by-step assistance

Get Started

Recommended Textbook for

Sports Law

Authors: Mark James

3rd Edition

113755925X, 978-1137559258

More Books

Students also viewed these Law questions