Breach of Contract - Debate
The first defenders agreed to appoint the pursuers as their agents with sole selling rights over properties being developed at Gallogate, Glasgow in a "Confirmation of Sole Selling Rights Agreement" on 5 September 2003. The pursuers were to have sole selling rights for a minimum period of 12 weeks from the date of the agreement, and the agreement was expressed to continue thereafter until the expiry of 28 days written notice of termination given by either party to the other. The main dispute in ...
|
Proof Before Answer - Breach of Contract
The pursuers acted as agents for the procurement of military equipment. The defenders manufacture diving equipment both for commercial and military use. Here the pursuers sued the defenders for payment of £392,992 or alternatively £81,890 with interest thereon in respect of a verbal agreement in 1998 in which the defenders agreed with the pursuers that the pursuers should act as exclusive agents for the supply of the defenders' 'stealth' rebreather products to the armed forces of the United Arab ...
|
Breach of Contract
The pursuer normally lives and works in the United States of America as a golf instructor but has a home in Kirkcaldy. The defenders are an association of professional golfers who regulate the professional playing of golf in Scotland. The defenders oversee the training and examination of candidates who wish to become members of their association. The opportunities for those who wish to teach golf in Scotland or the United Kingdom but who are not PGA members are restricted. The pursuer wished to ...
|
Preliminary Proof - Breach of Contract
The pursuers were in business as car auctioneers.from premises at 15 and 33 Scotland Street, Glasgow which they leased from the defenders. The pursuers sought declarator that the defenders were in material breach of the lease and that they were entitled to rescind the lease, and validly did so, by a notice dated 16 May 2003. The defenders denied that they acted in breach of contract and, in the alternative, that any breach of contract on their part was not material. The defenders lodged a counte ...
|
Debate - Dissolution of Partnership
The deceased (who died in March 2000) was a partner in a firm which operated a fishing boat, the Marigold. Cessation accounts were drawn up as at that date of the death, without the agreement of the three surviving partners. The accounts brought out a balance in the deceased's capital account of £133,537. That sum was not, however, paid to the deceased's executors and sought payment of that sum in this action. The surviving partners, the defenders in the action, continued to operate the Marigold ...
|
Commercial Action - Action for Payment - Debate
The pursuers claimed that they overpaid the defenders for goods supplied between August 2001 and January 2005 through an incorrectly applied discount and they sought repayment of it. At debate counsel for the defenders submitted that the remedy sought and the legal basis upon which it was sought required that the defenders be sued in the country of their domicile, namely, England. Counsel for the pursuers argued that the first issue to be decided was to resolve the dispute as to entitlement to t ...
|
Commercial Action - Action for Payment - Debate
The pursuers claimed that they overpaid the defenders for goods supplied between August 2001 and January 2005 through an incorrectly applied discount and they sought repayment of it. At debate counsel for the defenders submitted that the remedy sought and the legal basis upon which it was sought required that the defenders be sued in the country of their domicile, namely, England. Counsel for the pursuers argued that the first issue to be decided was to resolve the dispute as to entitlement to t ...
|
Company Law:
The respondents have appealed against an interlocutor of the sheriff in which she found and declared that the affairs of the first respondent ("Estates") had been conducted in a manner which was unfairly prejudicial to the interests of the petitioner and ordained the second respondent to purchase the petitioners shareholding in the company. The petitioners application to the sheriff court invoked the provisions of Part XVII of the Companies Act 1985. The appeal counsel submit that the sheriff wa ...
|
Briefly the history of the case is that the Pursuers were granted a patent which the defenders opposed.After procedure the the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office rejected the opposition. Thereafter the defenders filed an appeal against this
|
Action for Recovery:
In the principal action the pursuers seek to recover payment for works they carried out in terms of a Sub-Contract between the parties. Some time after the action was raised the parties agreed that the Court be invited to address a number of questions. The question addressed in this judgement is question F which relates to the counterclaim: "Is the counterclaim relevant or pled (whether in the pleadings or in the discs or documents lodged in process) with sufficient specification to allow it to ...
|
| 1 2 |