H&P, an investment bank, provided services allegedly worth USD 18 million to Randgold, who H&P had assumed was a client. However, terms of their engagement were never formalised or even written down. After the transaction, Randgold refused to pay H&P for its services. The court rejected H&P’s claim that there had been an oral contract for services but, unusually, did order Randgold to pay for the value of the services rendered on the basis that it would otherwise be unjustly enriched … (more)
[A&O Shearman, 14 April 2025]
Leave a Reply