Peterson Farms Inc v. C & M Farming Ltd
England and Wales High Court of Justice
[2004] EWHC 121 (Comm) 1, [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 603 (Comm) (English High Ct.) (2004)
- Written by Sara Adams, JD
Facts
Peterson Farms, Inc. (Peterson) (plaintiff) and C & M Farming, Ltd (C & M) (defendant) contracted in an agreement for Peterson to sell C & M male poultry birds for breeding. C & M sold the resulting chicks, primarily to other entities that were part of the C & M group. The agreement was governed by Arkansas law and included a clause stating that disputes arising between the parties were to be arbitrated by the International Chamber of Commerce, U.K. (ICC). The poultry Peterson sold to C & M was infected with a virus. C & M initiated arbitration proceedings against Peterson at the ICC. The arbitration resulted in a two-part award to C & M that included damages for losses to C & M and damages for losses suffered by other C & M group entities. Peterson filed an action in English commercial court, arguing that the ICC did not have jurisdiction to award damages to the C & M group entities because they were not named as parties to the agreement. The ICC award had examined the jurisdiction issue and found that the ICC had jurisdiction to issue an award for harm to the C & M group entities under the group-of-companies doctrine or, alternatively, because C & M entered the agreement as an agent for the other C & M group entities. Peterson noted the fact that C & M never claimed to be an agent for the other C & M group entities during arbitration.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Langley, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
