HomeAccessibilityIndependent approachTurnaround timeCommunication skillsFee structures
solicitors -  commercial legal work

Arbitration
Assets/shares buy/sell
Commercial advice
Company law
Company start ups
Competition law
Confidentiality
Construction & building
Contract advice
Conveyancing
Copyright
Debt recovery
Design rights
Directors duties
Discrimination
Dismissal law
E-commerce
Employment
European law
Franchising
Infringement
Insurance
Intellectual property
Joint ventures
Libel
Licensing (premises)
Litigation (commercial)
Merchandising
Music & entertainment
Negligence (general)
Partnerships
Passing-off
Patents
Planning
Professional negligence
Redundacy
Reinsurance
Shareholders
Software
Sponsorship
Sports contracts
Trade Marks (Trademarks)
Unfair dismissal

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY - CONTRACT

COMPUTERS : DATA STORAGE : DATABASES : DATABASE SYSTEMS : QUOTATIONS : INDIVIDUAL STORE FILES

The word "database" in a quotation to recover email data from computerised tapes referred to a MS Exchange Database and not to a backup file or Personal Store file.

VOGON INTERNATIONAL LTD V SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE (2004)

CA (Lord Philips MR, May LJ, parker LJ) 4/2/2004

The claimant (V) appealed against the declaration of Seymour J that the word "database" in a quotation to recover email data from computerised tapes referred to a MS Exchange Database. The defendant (D) was carrying out investigations on a case and required email data recovered from computerised tapes. V was engaged as a contractor to carry out the data recovery on the basis of a quotation from V which included the phrase "Set-up and population MS Exchange Database £1,500 per database". On completion of the works V invoiced D for £314,375 on the basis that the phrase "per database" referred either to individual Personal Store files (PST) which were a type of database in which the email data had been stored or to a backup file containing data. D contended that "per database" was to be construed as referring to each MS Exchange Database and that on that basis V was entitled to £22,500. On V's claim for the full amount Seymour J decided the construction of "database" in favour of D and awarded V £22,500.

HELD: The word "database" referred to a MS Exchange Database and not to an individual backup file or PST, as that construction was consonant with the description of the work carried out. In addition that construction produced a commercially sensible amount for the work carried out.

Appeal dismissed.

Lawtel: 9th February 2004

E-mail us with details of your enquiry on intellectual-property@humphreys.co.uk
Include your telephone number,
fax number and address.

Tel (0117) (international +44 117) 929 2662 
Fax (0117) (international +44 117) 929 2722




Relevant material




Intellectual property: novelty: originality: commonplace designs
 
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY - CONTRACT
 
Wunderkind Trade Mark
 
Brands are new religion, says advertising agency
 
TRADE MARKS - CONFUSION - UNITED - PRIOR REGISTRATION OF MANCHESTER UNITED
 
Threshold of registrability lowered
 
Grants towards legal costs: IP Wales
 
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – CONTRACTS – INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
 
Intellectual Property: patents: infringement: claims: limitation: declarations of non-infringement
 
Intellectual property: Civil procedure
 
United States Patent & Trademark Office
 
African Intellectual Property Organisation
 
German Patent & Trade Mark Office
 


Humphreys & Co., solicitors Bristol



Click here for information about the work we do for private clients.

© Copyright Humphreys & Co., solicitors

Home Page