Proof:- The pursuers process, package and supply potatoes to the food trade and operate from premises in Airdrie. In October 2001, the pursuers invited tenders for the design and construction of a new potato processing and packaging plant in Airdrie. In December 2001, a contract was entered in to between the pursuers and the defenders whereby the defenders were responsible for the design and construction of the new building and by way of sub-contracts the third parties were also involved in the ...
|
The petitioners are tenants under a long lease of a restaurant in Bothwell. The respondent, as pursuer, raised an action against the petitioners, as defenders, in Hamilton Sheriff Court where they sought payment from the defenders of £204,000. By letters of inhibition registered on 18 September 2007 following registration of a notice of inhibition on 31 August 2007 the respondent inhibited the petitioners on the dependence of the action. Here the petitioners sought recall of the inhibition ...
|
Proof before answer:- In terms of a business transfer agreement dated 13 and 27 July 2006 the defender, a partner in the law firm "Clairmonts", sold his interest in that law firm, including his interest in the business as a going concern to the pursuers, another law firm. Subsequently, pursuant to another agreement the defender became a partner with the pursuers. The price for the purchase of the defender’s interest in Clairmonts was £800,000 payable by six instalments the last instal ...
|
Debate:- In this action the pursuers sought declarator that the defenders were in material breach of a franchise agreement dated 18 October 2001. The pursuers, a printing company, are registered in Scotland. The defenders, a company who grant franchises to others, are registered and domiciled in England. At debate the question was whether the pursuers had pleaded a relevant case that the court here had jurisdiction in terms of paragraph 3(a) of Schedule 4 to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments ...
|
In 2006 the pursuers, who design and manufacture signs in Scotland, purchased from the defenders a printing machine. Since then the pursuers have not been happy with the printing machine's performance and have sought to reject the machine on the ground that it was not of satisfactory quality or fit for purpose under section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. Here the pursuers sought inter alia declarator that they were entitled to reject the printing machine. The defenders lodged defences in whic ...
|
On 29 May 2008 the defenders, a limited liability partnership of solicitors, offered by way of a formal letter, to purchase commercial subjects in Glasgow, for £8,800,000, on behalf of a purchaser, who was defined in the offer as "the Members of the 227 Syndicate" but who, it transpired, did not exist on 29 May 2008. Tods Murray LLP, acting on behalf of the pursuers, accepted the offer with an unqualified acceptance. In this action the pursuers sought:- (1) declarator that the defenders wer ...
|
Debate:- On 25 April 2007 the pursuers entered into a Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) with the defenders for the sale of the issued share capital of Scottish Motor Auctions Limited (the Company) to the defenders for £15 million, £14.5 million to be paid in cash on completion and the remaining £500,000 plus interest to be paid into a retention account in the joint names of the parties' solicitors. The SPA provided that prior to completion the sellers should procure the declaration o ...
|
Proof Before Answer:- In this action the pursuers, a company of grain merchants, sought damages from the defenders, a farming company, in respect of the defenders' breach of contract. The defenders denied liability. The issue in this case was whether or not in September 2006, the pursuer, through a director, Mark Paton, agreed to a variation of a wheat supply contract previously entered in to between the parties. It was the defenders' position that the contract had been varied at a meeting, in p ...
|
On 17 October 2006, the defenders were employed as managing directors of the pursuers, sister companies, respectively and both men entered into a Service Agreement with their respective companies, both of which included a restrictive covenant. On termination of their employment, the defenders agreed:- (1) to a non-solicitation restraint; (2) to a non-trading restraint; and (3) to a world-wide restraint against working in competition with the business of their employers. On 3 and 4 November 2008 ...
|
Interim Interdict:- From 1 August 2006 the defender, a solicitor, sold his business to the pursuers, a firm of solicitors and became a member of that firm. On 2 August 2008 the defender gave notice that he would resign as a member of the pursuers with effect from 2 February 2009. Since February 2009 the defender has been a member of a further firm of solicitors. This action arose out of the terms of the Business Transfer Agreement by which the defender sold his business to the pursuers including ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 |