High Court Case Analysis: Aston Martin v Premier International - Contractual Disputes and Credit Note Implications

Citation: [2024] EWHC 284 (Comm)
Judgment on


This article provides an analytical overview of the High Court case Aston Martin Lagonda Limited v Premier International Motors Group Co W.L.L. The case delves into complex commercial disputes arising from written contracts for the sale of heritage Aston Martin vehicles, addressing various contractual interpretations and the implication of terms. The judgment illuminates important principles pertaining to contractual obligations, interest, and the application of credit notes in commercial transactions.

Key Facts

The claimant, Aston Martin Lagonda Limited (AML), an English manufacturer of luxury cars, entered into two agreements with the defendant, Premier International Motors Group Co W.L.L. (PIMG), incorporated in Kuwait. The agreements pertained to the sale of 33 heritage Aston Martin vehicles (the Heritage Vehicles) to settle debts owed by PIMG and affiliated entities to AML.

The first agreement in 2015 involved the sale of 8 vehicles (the 2015 Heritage Vehicles) to clear existing debts, and the second agreement in 2016 involved the transfer and sale of 25 vehicles (the 2016 Heritage Vehicles) in exchange for a credit note issued by AML. The agreements outlined obligations for sales procedures, restoration works, and provided for a mechanism to cover any shortfall through various financial mechanisms including the said credit note.

The analysis centered on various legal principles including:

  1. Contractual Interpretation: The court followed established principles for interpreting contracts, focusing on the intention of the parties, considering the language, context, and commercial common sense. This included rejecting the notion that one agreement’s terms could set standards for another dated a year apart, despite shared common intentions.

  2. Conditions Precedent and Innominate Terms: The case explored whether certain contractual conditions such as notification requirements and certification achievements were conditions precedent, impacting the execution of subsequent obligations, or were innominate terms giving rise to potential claims for damages upon breach.

  3. Best Endeavours Obligation: The case reaffirmed the standard for ‘best endeavors’ as obligating a party to subordinate, to an extent, its own financial interests to fulfill contractual results, distinguished from ‘reasonable endeavours’.

  4. Implied Terms: It was acknowledged that unreasonably incurred costs would not be recoverable under either agreement, and terms may be implied if they are necessary to give business efficacy to the contract or so obvious they go without saying.

  5. Interest: The judgment confirmed that interest on the relevant shortfall is governed by the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 and accrues from the date an ascertainable debt is invoiced.

  6. Application of Credit Note: The court considered the flexible application of credit notes against various transactions, rejecting the notion of exclusivity to specific transactions when not expressly stipulated.


Key outcomes included:

  • AML’s power to sell the vehicles was not contingent on giving PIMG five business days’ notice, but failure to notify would invoke only a nominal damage claim.
  • Sales of the Heritage Vehicles were concluded to be at or above the prevailing market prices (PMP) at the time of sale, satisfying AML’s obligations.
  • Repair, re-work, and restoration costs, as well as storage costs, were considered recoverable, subject to being reasonably and proportionately incurred.
  • The credit note issued by AML was deemed to have been exhausted against various debts as per inter-company decisions, disputing PIMG’s claim of an unexhausted balance.


In Aston Martin Lagonda Limited v Premier International Motors Group Co W.L.L., the court meticulously applied contractual interpretation principles, demonstrating a judicious balance between the literal language of the commercial contracts and the surrounding circumstances. It upheld the sanctity of contractual terms while incorporating considerations of reasonableness and proportionality. The judgment serves as an instructive account of how commercial contracts should be handled when disputes arise, emphasizing the importance of clarity in drafting and the perils of informal accounting practices in inter-company transactions.

Related Summaries