E-law cases
Custom Search
   Case summaries      Shell UK v Lostock Garage


Shell UK v Lostock Garage Limited [1976] 1 WLR 1187  Court of Appeal
Lostock Garage entered a solus agreement with Shell by which they would only buy and sell petrol from Shell for 20 years. For agreeing to being tied in to Shell they received a discount.  However, after entering this agreement, Shell began supplying petrol to Lostock’s neighbouring garages at an even lower price. Lostock were unable to compete with these prices and began obtaining petrol from a third party. Shell brought an action for breach of contract and Lostock asked the court to imply a term that Shell would not abnormally discriminate against them in supplying other garages in the locality.
The court refused to imply a term in fact as it was not a necessary term to imply as the contract made business sense without it, nor was it obvious that Shell would have agreed to it. They also refused  to imply a term in law. Whilst the term may be a reasonable one to include it lacked sufficient certainty.
Lord Denning MR:
“If Shell had been asked at the beginning: 'Will you agree not to discriminate abnormally against the buyer?' I think they would have declined. It might be a reasonable term, but it is not a necessary term. Nor can it be formulated with sufficient precision.”
Back to lecture outline on implied terms in contract law