Blue v Ashley [2017] EWHC 1928 (Comm); [2017] 7 WLUK 593

The case centered on a disputed agreement arising from a conversation, with the evidence presented to establish a binding commitment. It involved a claim of a binding agreement, where one party commits a significant sum based on specific conditions. 

The dispute hinged on interpreting the initial conversation and subsequent actions. The assessment focused on essential contract elements, including clarity of terms and mutual intention. 

The case relied on recollections, evaluating their reliability and considering subsequent conversations.

• The court evaluated evidence to determine if a binding contract was formed, scrutinizing the parties' intentions and actions. 

• The court explored a defense linking payment to specific actions influencing a financial outcome within the broader context of contract existence.

The case involved a dispute between Mr. Jeffrey Ross Blue (“Claimant”) and Mr. R Michael James Wallace Ashley (“Defendant”) over an alleged agreement made in a pub conversation. Mr. Ashley supposedly offered £15 million if Mr. Blue could raise Sports Direct's share price to £8. 

The court concluded that the offer was not serious, and Mr. Blue's subsequent belief in a contract was wishful thinking.

• The court rejected claims of work performed by Mr. Blue outside his consultancy agreement.  

• The court found the lack of essential terms renders any potential contract unenforceable.

Mr. Blue failed to prove a causal link between his actions and the share price increase, leading to the dismissal of his claims.

The judgment rendered its conclusion based on the assessment of the conversation between Mr. Blue and Mr. Ashley within the confines of a pub setting.

• During this exchange, Mr. Ashley made a jesting proposal of £15 million contingent upon the Sports Direct share price reaching £8.

• The court firmly determined that this statement did not constitute a serious offer intended to form a legally binding contract.

According to the court's findings, the prevailing sentiment among reasonable individuals at the time was that the proposition lacked the requisite seriousness to establish a contractual obligation.

• It was unequivocally deemed a jest rather than a genuine commitment. Mr. Blue's pursuit of the £15 million was met with rejection by the court.

• In observation, the court highlighted that Mr. Blue's belief in the existence of a legally binding agreement was characterized as wishful thinking.

• This acknowledgment emphasized the subjective nature of Mr. Blue's perception, depicting the absence of a genuine intent to create a contract during the mentioned exchange.

The court's decision highlights the importance of clear intent in contractual agreements.

Despite Mr. Blue's subsequent belief in the seriousness of the offer made by Mr. Ashley in a pub, the court found that the initial conversation was more of a jest and not intended to create a legally binding contract. 

The judgment emphasizes the need for specificity in contractual terms, including a clear understanding of the time frame for fulfilling conditions.

The court scrutinized Mr. Blue's later actions, stating that he failed to prove a causal link between his efforts and the increase in Sports Direct share prices.

This case shows the significance of objective evidence and expert testimony in establishing legal claims.