The pursuers, a company who distilled whiskey, entered in to a Distribution Agreement with the defenders, a company who distribute alcohol in the United States, in which the pursuers granted the defenders the exclusive right to purchase John Barr Scotch Whiskies in the United States. In 2010 negotiations took place in relation to the pursuers seeking to purchase the defenders' business. During the course of the pursuers carrying out due diligence in regard to the defenders' business, the pursuer ...
|
The appellant (A) appealed against the decision of the CA that it had not entered into a contract with the respondent (R). Although the parties had intended that a written contract would set out the terms on which the work was to be carried out, work had begun before the terms were finalised. For the purpose of enabling the work to begin, and while continuing to negotiate the full contract terms, the parties had entered into a contract formed by a letter of intent.The Supreme Court restated the ...
|
The appellant (A) appealed against the decision of the CA that it had not entered into a contract with the respondent (R). Although the parties had intended that a written contract would set out the terms on which the work was to be carried out, work had begun before the terms were finalised. For the purpose of enabling the work to begin, and while continuing to negotiate the full contract terms, the parties had entered into a contract formed by a letter of intent.The Supreme Court restated the ...
|
Normal 0 The first pursuer is a company which distils whisky. In 1993 three schemes for the employees of the company were amalgamated into the William Grant & Sons Limited Pension Scheme of which the second pursuers are the trustees. The defenders are a consulting actuary company and provided services to the second pursuers under a contract. In this action the pursuers sought declarator that under the Pension Scheme the normal retirement date for all members of the scheme was f ...
|
A Final Order was issued by the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice in England on 16 October 2003. The petitioner was a judgment debtor in respect of the Final Order to the respondent to this petition. Here the petitioner applied in terms of paragraph 10 of Schedule 6 to the Civil Jurisdiction Act 1982, to reduce the registration of a Certificate of money provisions contained in the judgment dated 16 October 2003 under Rule of Court 62.37(3). The Final Order was made with the consent ...
|
Between 1993 and 2008 the Pursuers/Appellants received a number of charge notices from the Defenders/Respondents for water and sewage charges. These were paid but the Pursuers discovered in 2007 that they had not been using the Defenders’ infrastructure and, therefore, were not liable to pay the charges. The Defenders repaid some of the sums paid but argued that payments made before April 2002 were not recoverable on the basis that they had prescribed under s6(1) of the Prescription & ...
|
Outer House: Preliminary proof; The pursuer and Defender (the third party was not present or represented) conducted a preliminary proof in respect of their contractual relationship. In particular, the defenders had, over a period of years, provided rivets to the pursuers following the conclusion of multiple contracts of sale for rivets. The issues in dispute before proof were in respect of the defenders' and the pursuers' standard terms incorporated in each individual contracts of sale; whether ...
|
In December 2006 the pursuers and the defenders entered in to a contract in which the pursuers undertook to carry out "Works" including the design and construction of six schools including Prestwick Academy. The pursuers sub-contracted the Works to a Building Contractor, Carillion. In terms of the contract each phase of the Works had to achieve Service Availability on the Target Service Availability Date, which included three phases in relation to Prestwick Academy. In this action the pursuers a ...
|
Reclaiming Motion:- In this action the pursuers and respondents' sought certain payments from the defenders and reclaimers which arise out of the dissolution of a partnership in which the parties, together with the reclaimer's late husband were partners. On 29 October 2008, the Lord Ordinary pronounced an interlocutor granting decree against the defender and reclaimer for the sums specified therein together with sums representing contractual and judicial interest and it is against that interlocu ...
|
The Pursuers claimed damages from the Defenders agruing that they had been induced to enter into contracts for the lease of copying and printing equipment on the basis of negligent misrepresentations made by a director of the Defenders, Mr Y. The Pursuers sold and hired out highland dress and accessories. The Defenders supplied and sold copying, scanning and printing equipment. Mr Y had contacted the Pursuers and had offered to supply them with new and updated copying and printing equipment. The ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |