Barton v Morris: Sarah Allan & Chris Ward consider the Supreme Court’s reminder that ‘unjust enrichment mends no-one’s bargain’
- The Supreme Court’s decision in Barton v Morris is expected to be treated as a leading case on the interaction between the law of unjust enrichment and law of contract.
- A key takeaway is that oral contracts for valuable commercial bargains are to be discouraged, as are claimants who would look to buttress an ailing contractual litigation by alleging a right of action in unjust enrichment.
Sales agents and brokers may often achieve a significant return for a modest work output, but they also invest time and effort facilitating introductions and negotiations that do not proceed to fruition. Wasted work is a fact of life for those operating on commission.
Of course, it is open to commission agents to agree terms stipulating precisely when and how commission is earned, thereby resolving ambiguity, and reducing the risk of fruitless endeavours. In this regard, the story behind Barton and others v Morris and another [2023] UKSC 3, [2023] All
