Skip to main content

Insight article

May 14, 2018

Contract formation

Contrary to popular belief, legally binding contracts don’t always take the form of lengthy written documents

Under English law, contracts can be made orally, which frequently happens in a dynamic business environment. However, whether a binding agreement has been made depends upon the core principles of a contract being satisfied. Generally speaking, for a contract to be valid and binding, there must be:

  1. an offer from one party and acceptance of that offer by the other;
  2. a mutual intention between the parties to create legal relations;
  3. some form of “consideration” passing one way and the other (e.g. money or services); and
  4. certainty as to the terms of the contract.

Provided that these principles are complied with, a binding contract can be made at any time, in any place and in almost any manner.

These core principles of English contract law were explored in the case of MacInnes v Gross. The case concerned an investment banker (MacInnes) and the ultimate majority stakeholder in the RunningBall Group (Gross), a real-time sports data provider.

“The case sheds light on the pitfalls of relying on oral or otherwise informal arrangements made in casual settings.”

MacInnes sued Gross for €13.5m, alleging that Gross breached an oral agreement between the two whilst having dinner in Mayfair in March 2011.

MacInnes alleged that he and Gross had struck a legally binding contract at dinner, where MacInnes would assist Gross in the sale of his stake in the RunningBall Group in exchange for 15% of the difference between the actual sale price of the business and the lower of either 100m Swiss Francs or eight times the business’ 2011 earnings before interest and tax. Gross denied that such an agreement existed and said that all that had taken place was an informal meeting over dinner, at which some headline commercial terms had been discussed.

Gross accepted that when the pair met in Mayfair, there was a discussion about the future of the RunningBall Group and the possibility of MacInnes supporting the business. Gross also accepted that there was a discussion about the possibility of MacInnes participating in the benefit of a sale of the RunningBall Group. However, Gross said that all such discussions were predicated on the basis that MacInnes would invest in the RunningBall Group by buying shares at a preferential rate based on an agreed formula. Clearly, the claims being put forward by the parties, whilst broadly similar in terms of context, were significantly different in terms of substance.

Interestingly, MacInnes emailed Gross following the meeting in March 2011, setting out certain observations concerning the RunningBall Group and the options that were open to Gross regarding a possible sale. Crucially, that email contained two paragraphs concerning MacInnes’ potential role. That email was the only contemporaneous record of the discussions that had taken place over dinner and set out that MacInnes was delighted that he and Gross were “agreed on headline terms”. Contrast this to the recent case of Blue v Ashley involving Sports Direct’s CEO Mike Ashley, where no paper or electronic trace could be found evidencing the alleged contract.

Around nine months later, it became clear that a sale of the RunningBall Group was beginning to crystallise. At that point, MacInnes emailed Gross, forwarding his previous email and stating that he was conscious that their agreement had worked in his favour. MacInnes went on to say that the two of them should be “completely aligned” going forwards, and Gross replied that they needed to make a “proper contract”. MacInnes never responded to that statement, notwithstanding his obvious contention that a “proper contract” had already been made.

As time passed, MacInnes’ role in the sale of the RunningBall Group became increasingly limited; by its sale, he was almost entirely peripheral. Broadly, the terms agreed upon for the sale were:

  • €20m cash;
  • €50m worth of shares in the buying entity; and
  • deferred consideration depending on the company’s subsequent performance (initially subject to a hold-back).

On that basis, MacInnes demanded payment for €13.5m as the “objective market value of his services”, referencing the formula agreed by the parties under the alleged contract made in March 2011.

The Court was, therefore, required to determine whether a legally binding contract had indeed been made when MacInnes met with Gross in March 2011.

Unfortunately for MacInnes, the Court favoured Gross without much hesitation. Indeed, the judge was “firmly of the view that no binding contract was made [and that] there was no intention to create legal relations.”

Interestingly, the judge affirmed that “the mere fact that the discussion took place over dinner in a smart restaurant does not, of itself, preclude the coming into existence of a binding contract. A contract can be made anywhere, in any circumstances. But I consider that the fact that this alleged agreement was made in a highly informal and relaxed setting means that the court should closely scrutinise the contention that, despite the setting, there was an intention to create legal relations.”

“The key takeaway from this case is that relying on informal arrangements is simply not worth the risk. Unfortunately, Mr MacInnes learned the hard way that legal agreements should be documented in writing with the benefit of clear and considered legal advice.”

For more information on contract formation, speak to corporate lawyer Veronica Hartley today.

Note: This is not legal advice; it is intended to provide information of general interest about current legal issues.

Stay in touch

Subscribe to our newsletter

Stay in touch

By completing your details and submitting this form you confirm you are happy for us to send you marketing communications and that you agree to our Website Privacy Policy and Legal Notice and to us using Mailchimp to process your data.


Sending

News/Insight

  • Supporting neurodiverse people in family law matters
    Understanding neurodiversity in the legal context.


    Read more
  • Supreme court ruling on referees’ employment status
    In PGMOL v HMRC, the Supreme Court considered whether professional referees were self-employed. The case has the potential for far-reaching implications across the employment world.


    Read more
  • Business First Magazine
    Read our expert insights on key workplace and corporate issues.


    Read more
  • Why is clear contract drafting important?
    How simple contract clauses can protect your business.


    Read more
  • Ensuring equality: A legal guide to responsibilities and compliance
    Understanding equal opportunities in the workplace


    Read more

What they say...

  • Henry, April 2025
    “We have purchased flats before with 2 different solicitors who were unable to help us this time. Martin came highly recommended and are we glad. He was very professional in every way: knowledgeable, approachable, he has a friendly manner, very

  • Megan Purcell-Jones, April 2025
    “Charlotte was extremely diligent and thorough. She talked us through the process of making our wills and listened to and understood our needs and the complexities involved. Extremely patient and very clear.”

  • Hena, April 2025
    “Great experience, Patrick was very clear and gave time to explain the legal processes. Friendly and professional communication made me feel comfortable asking questions, received great legal advice.”

  • Michael Constable, April 2025
    “I wanted to revise my will and appoint RIAA Barker Gillette as my Executor and Trustees. This was handled very efficiently and professionally. It helped that I had agreed a fixed fee in advance.” Review left for: Herman Cheung

  • Anon, April 2025
    “Whistleblowing dismissal claim and settlement negotiations I can not speak highly enough of this firm and [Patrick Simpson], they were not only understanding of my case needs they also worked with the up most integrity and professionalism to e

Read more
Send this to a friend