Proof:- In this case the pursuers owned a farm in Perthshire together with shooting rights and an adjacent house. In 1998, the first defenders leased the farm and the shootings, and the second and third defenders leased the house. The pursuers purchased the farm and the house from the second and third defenders on a sale and leaseback arrangement, however, the pursuers experienced difficulties in obtaining the rent from them. Due to business difficulties the defenders sought a reduction of the r ...
|
Debate - In this action the pursuers were seeking: 1. For declarator that the pursuers and defenders were in partnership. 2. For count and reckoning by the defenders with the pursuers for the whole and for payment by the defenders to the pursuers of the balance found to be due. 3. Failing an accounting, for payment by the defenders to the pursuers of an overriding royalty. 4. Alternatively (a) to find and declare that the defenders have been unjustly enriched and (b) for payment by t ...
|
This case related to the pursuers seeking payment of the unpaid price of goods sold and supplied by them to the defenders and for damages for breach of contract. The defenders had a counterclaim for damages for breach of contract by the pursuers. Following the leading of evidence at a preliminary proof, at which all of the individuals who were involved with the parties' contract at management level gave evidence, Lord Drummond Young was invited to make certain findings as to the term ...
|
In this action, the pursuer sought declarator that he was a "Good Leaver" in terms of a Limited Partnership Agreement between himself, the second defender and others. The second defender as the General Partner in the Limited Partnership established by The Limited Partnership Agreement had declared the pursuer to be a "Bad Leaver". The pursuer's status as a "Good" or "Bad" Leaver would have consequences in terms of his entitlement to "carried interest" in the assets of the Limited Partnership.&nb ...
|
Appeal from the Sheriff Court:- In July 2004, the appellants sold a cinema multiplex and two commercial units in Aberdeen, to the respondents for over £11 million. The appellants did not transfer the relevant funds in terms of the obligations in the missives and in 2005 the respondents raised an action in the sheriff court in Aberdeen, seeking payment of certain specific sums in implement of their obligations. The appellants argued that information necessary for the calculation had not been prov ...
|
Contract - Reclaiming Motion:- Between March 2000 and June 2004, the firm carried out architectural services for the respondent in relation to the intended development of part of the respondent's property in Inverurie. On 6 July 2005, the reclaimers raised two invoices against the respondent for work carried out to the sum of £42,548.82. On 30 November 2006, the Lord Ordinary repelled the first plea-in-law of the reclaimers, sustained the respondent's second plea in law and assoilzied the respon ...
|
Action for Payment - The Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993 - Definition of Commercial AgentThe Pursuers were sales agents for the Defenders and negotiated contracts with customers on the Defenders' behalf for the erection of conservatories and extensions. There was no written contract between the parties. In a commercial action, the Pursuers sought a number of payments under the Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993, together with an order ...
|
Commercial Lease - Reclaiming Motion:- This appeal related to a dispute between the landlords (pursuers and reclaimers) and the tenants (defenders and respondents) as to the proper construction of the terms of the rent review clause. As the 3 yearly rent review approached the parties found themselves in disagreement as to the proper construction of the rent review clause (clause 3), and the present action was raised in December 2002. In it the pursuers sought declarator supporting their construc ...
|
Commercial Action - Contract
The defenders undertook to carry out construction works, on behalf of the pursuers as employer, in terms of a contract dated 30 April 1997 (the "Construction Contract"). The pursuers contracted with the then Secretary of State for Scotland to carry out operations including the works which were then made the subject of the Construction Contract between themselves and the defenders. Those obligations were wider than those undertaken by the defenders in terms of the Construction Contract. At debate ...
|
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 ...
|
| 1 2 3 |