No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 November 2003
Actionstrength Ltd. v. International Glass Engineering In.Gl.En. SpA and others [2003] UKHL 17, [2003] 2 W.L.R. 1060 raised two issues of law: the nature of a guarantee caught by section 4 of the Statute of Frauds 1677, and the question whether one may be estopped from claiming that such a guarantee is unenforceable for want of formalities.
The first defendant (“Inglen) and the claimant (“Actionstrength) were contractor and sub-contractor, respectively, in the construction of a factory for the second defendant, Saint-Gobain Glass UK Ltd. (“St-Gobain”). In February 2000 Inglen owed Actionstrength 197,000, so that Actionstrength was contractually entitled to withdraw its labour. St-Gobain's representative promised (or so Actionstrength alleged) that if Actionstrength would continue to supply labour to Inglen, St-Gobain would do its best to ensure that Inglen paid Actionstrength and, if Inglen did not do so, that St-Gobain would itself pay Actionstrength, if necessary using monies due from St-Gobain to Inglen.