Unic SA v Connor

Unic SA, a supplier of coffee machines and parts, commenced proceedings against Connor, seeking payment of 1,212,425.93FF for goods supplied. Connor argued that Unic had entered into a contract with a separate legal entity, rather than with Connor, and that the original contract had been terminated when the company began paying Connor’s debts. The matter was heard and determined by the court.

The primary legal issues that arose in this case were whether Unic had contracted with Connor or with another legal entity, and whether the original contract had been terminated by the company paying Connor’s debts. The court had to consider the nature of the contracts, the parties involved, and the circumstances in which the debts were paid.

The court found that Unic had indeed contracted with Connor and that the original contract had not been terminated by the company paying Connor’s debts. The court held that there was no evidence to suggest that Unic had intended to contract with a different entity, and that the payments made by the company were not sufficient to terminate the original contract. The court determined that Unic was entitled to payment for the goods supplied, and ordered that Connor pay Unic 1,212,425.93FF.