“[RAM] has not been paid the sum of€2,800,000 which was due to receive in accordance with the Agreement (€1,200,000 of which is the subject of a Bank Guarantee).”
“I … confirm that given the present situation in Greece, we feel that a FIFPro World XI Gala should not be held in Greece”
“Representing RAM we feel that some of the Awards winners will attend on November 6th. However we are bound to report to you and respond to FIFPro’s concerns. We therefore agreed with FIFPro that it would be a sensible precaution to pre-record all World XI winners receiving their awards from a suitable presenter…”
“Given your letter of Oct 6th, … we assume that you have no intention of cancelling the gala ceremony … Therefore we are looking forward to making good progress in the scheduled meetings of next week…”
“I would like to confirm that RAM has to fulfil its obligations with regard to”
“We are unhappy. We are confronted with problems concerning sponsors! We have problems with Mr Seggelen who says that the players cannot come. Yesterday we had a meeting with a possible sponsor and they had asked us who are expected to come players and if they come, and we did not know the answer. We feel terribly insecure not knowing where we are heading to. If you cannot ensure that what we sent on 17th October then we suggest even cancelling the event”
“letter covering ‘good execution’ attendance of six players”
“Against the Third Instalment of the hosting fee … as per contract dated10 May 2006 , which was payable on15th October 2006 . This invoice relates directly to”, and then, in the case of the first, “to the attendance of the Artist”, and in the case of the second, to various other invoices which were attached. In the e-mail Mr Manley wrote: “This is the start now of the process on the next 1.2m. I am concerned that we must get going now…”
“In other words, it does not look good for us. We seriously do not expect the situation to change during this week. Nevertheless, we will still do our utmost to convince the clubs and players to attend the gala. Contrary to the information that RAM gave you, we wanted to give you a realistic view in regard to the attendance of players. We can understand that you want to cancel the gala if there will be no players…”
“We were being asked to pay another€1.2 million , bringing the total to€3.6 million . I could not see what we were paying for”
“Because of the delay and the lack of organization of the presentations, we cannot sell the event. This is the biggest problem. We met in June … From then till now we hear from FIFPro that nobody is coming, therefore how possibly as a serious government can we accept all this? On the 23rd of the present month the letter was saying no”
“Hair and makeup 3 people”
“… we confirm with the present document the agreement between ourselves which was concluded on27 October 2006 …”
“I wondered how close we are to getting€1m ”
“After numerous telephone conversations of yesterday and today (30th and 31st of October 2006) we expected from your side confirmation of the issues that were commonly agreed in the meeting concluded on the 27th October … by which the [Agreement] was further detailed and specified, and which has come into effect as its is described below…”
“RAM/PMG are contractually obligated to deliver to Athens at their own expense: - at least 6 of the award winning players - award presenters: 4 award presenters (3 places are booked for provision by MoC) as follows: - the ‘heros’ of the award receivers to give them their trophies, - Other award presenters – celebrities from the football world, - The show presenters (Ruud Gullit and Gabby Logan)…” - at least 6 of the award winning players - award presenters: 4 award presenters (3 places are booked for provision by MoC) as follows: - the ‘heros’ of the award receivers to give them their trophies, - Other award presenters – celebrities from the football world, - The show presenters (Ruud Gullit and Gabby Logan)…”
“Although we believed we had an agreement on 27 October, some of those terms were improved to try to reach a deal with RAM. For example we were prepared to agree a figure of€2.3 million …”
“The fact that one party is contractually entitled to terminate the agreement in the event of a breach by the other party does not preclude that party from treating the agreement as discharged by reason of the other's repudiation or breach of condition, unless the agreement itself expressly or impliedly provides that it can only be terminated by exercise of the contractual right. Whether the procedure laid down for termination in the contract excludes, expressly or impliedly, the common law right to terminate further performance of the contract in respect of a breach which falls within the scope of the clause is a question of construction of the contract.”
“To be repudiatory, the breach, or threatened breach, must go to the root of the contract. If an anticipatory breach is relied on, the renunciation must be "an intimation of an intention to abandon and altogether to refuse performance of the contract "; or, put in other but equally clear words, "the true question is whether the acts and conduct of the party evince an intention no longer to be bound by the contract": Lord Coleridge C.J. in Freeth v. Burr, L.R. 9 C.P. 208, 213.”
“In Re Olympia & York Canary Wharf Ltd (No 2)[1993] BCC 159 Morritt J, as he then was, considered the authorities relating to the making of time of the essence. From that analysis and other authority I derive the following propositions: (a) Equity, before the Judicature Acts, insisted that prima facie time for payment was not essential. But Equity's patience was exhaustible. It would allow the contract to be treated as repudiated if the party in default had been given the opportunity to mend his ways by the giving of a notice to comply within a reasonable time. Whilst this is described as making time of the essence in reality the notice is the means of bringing to an end equity's interference with the contract. Behzadi v Shaftesbury Hotels[1992] Ch 1 ; (b) Such a notice, which may be given in respect of any species of term, may not be served until the time for performance has expired; but it may be served as soon as that time arrives; (c) Such a notice must state clearly what the other party is required to do and the consequence if he fails i.e. that the contract may be terminated; Afovos Shipping v Pagnan[1982] 1 WLR 848 , 854C [“A notice must be clear, definite and absolute and given at a time after the default has occurred”]; (d) If the defaulting party fails to perform after service of such a notice, the failure is not automatically a repudiation of the contract, giving rise to a right to terminate. The breach must go to the root of the contract; (e) The notice operates as evidence of the date by which the promisee considers it reasonable to require the contract to be performed, failure to perform by which is evidence of an intention not to perform: see Lord Simon of Glaisdale in United Scientific Holdings Ltd v Burnley Borough Council [1978] A.C. 904, 946E–947A; Astea (UK) Ltd v Time Group Ltd[2003] EWHC 725 , TCC, para 147.”
“Para 11(b) is noted [that is the paragraph in which RAM offer credit for the Savings] and RAM is put to strict proof. In particular it is noted that it would appear that RAM has avoided all or most of the expenses alleged to be related to the15th October 2006 instalment payment in respect of which as pleaded earlier invoices were presented (after the due date) in the amount of or about€290,480.34 .[The Ministry] avers that if RAM had properly performed its obligations under the Agreement (including but not limited to its best endeavours obligations), the total costs which it would have had to bear in organising the … Awards would have exceeded€4m . In the premises, [the Ministry] avers that RAM’s Savings for which it must give credit (as defined in paragraph 13(c)) are sufficient to extinguish any liability which RAM might establish by reason of its claim under paragraph 13(b)).”
"When a party to a simple contract, upon a breach by the other contracting party of a condition of the contract, elects to treat the contract as no longer binding upon him, the contract is not rescinded as from the beginning. Both parties are discharged from further performance of the contract, but rights are not divested or discharged which have already been unconditionally acquired. Rights and obligations which arise from the partial execution of the contract and causes of action which have accrued from its breach alike continue unaffected."
“This concession is limited only to those sums which would necessarily have been spent and which were not spent as a result of the acceptance of the repudiation – it goes no wider than that”
“… Mr Manley’s estimations are not based on any personal knowledge or experience of what it was likely to have cost to put on an event of this nature, as he himself noted: “At the moment lots of people at PMG are asking me to authorise expenditure on various items but without reference to a specific budget line. It’s all very well saying that this is now my responsibility but as I have never run an event before the numbers I am using were provided to me by Charlie Perring at PMG.””