INTERFOTO PICTURE LIBRARY LTD V STILETTO VISUAL PROGRAMMES LTD
FACTS
Stiletto needed photographs for an advertising campaign for a client. It contacted Interfoto, with whom it had no previous dealings, and asked if it had any suitable photographs. Interfoto sent some photographs to Stiletto with a delivery note and specified that the photography had to be returned by 19 March 1998. The delivery note included a condition that if the photographs were returned late a fee of $5.00 per day plus UAT would be charged.
Stiletto returned the photographs on 2 April 1999 and were charged $3,783.50 by Interfoto. Stiletto refused to pay and Interfoto issued legal proceedings.
ISSUE
Was the condition about late return of the photographs a term of the contract between the parties?
FINDING
…Doyles Arbitration Lawyers provides the Arbwatch, a regular newsletter, highlighting new and important developments and cases in Arbitration law.
The subject matter focusses on the Australian jurisdiction, however we also regularly highlight international arbitral cases of import or interest.
We respect your privacy. Sign up below, it’s free and you can unsubscribe at any time:
