Readers of the Comment on the Court of Appeal’s decision in the last issue of this Quarterly 3 will recall that the Walfords were claiming damages for breach of an agreement by the Miles, who were proposing to sell their photographic business. Although the initial negotiations for the sale of the business had resulted in agreement on a number of terms, including a price of £2 million, they remained “subject to contract”. The Walfords argued that the Miles’ decision to terminate discussions with the Walfords and sell the business to another purchaser was in breach of a separate agreement, into which the Miles accepted they had entered, whereby the Walfords agreed to continue negotiations and not to withdraw and to provide a letter of comfort from their bankers, and the Miles agreed to refrain from negotiating with any third party or considering any alternative proposal, even if they received a satisfactory proposal before the deadline for the provision of the letter of comfort. The Walfords subsequently added to their statement of claim that “it was a term of the said collateral agreement necessarily to be implied to give business efficacy thereto that, so long as they continued to desire to sell the said property