The parties entered into an agreement in May 2005 whereby the pursuer (and appellant) was to design and construct a timber framed riding arena for the defenders (and respondents). First Instance Proceedings: The pursuer sought decree for payment of outstanding sums. He averred that the price agreed was to be the amount it would cost him to build the arena and that it cost him £53,219.57 to do so. The defenders submitted that the price was to be £21,000 as well as any sums for additi ...
|
The defenders (and appellants) were a construction development company. The pursuers (and respondents) were subcontractors of the defenders. In July 2008 the pursuers issued a payment claim for building and ancillary works carried out for the defenders in Motherwell. The defenders resisted payment and issued a Notice of Withholding in respect of six items. The dispute was referred to adjudication where it was decided that the defenders were entitled to withhold payment in respect of two items bu ...
|
The pursuers and reclaimers to this action were specialists in the extrusion of pipes; they manufactured an ordinary extruded pipe, made from carbon steel, known as the Ex pipe. The defenders and respondents were engaged in the design, manufacture and supply of pipeline components, including pipes. They had developed a patented process for the manufacture of clad co-extruded pipes, known as the Proclad Wex pipe. In early 2002, the respondents approached the reclaimers, with a view working toge ...
|
In November 1999 the respondent entered into an option agreement to purchase up to 21.1 acres of land from a vendor. In October 2003 the reclaimer concluded missives with the respondent to purchase from it 4.685 acres of that land at a price of £571,314. Clause 4.1.10, introduced in the respondent's qualified acceptance of 24 September 2003, contained a suspensive condition, which provided that the missives would be essentially conditional upon the seller (the respondent) “agreeing a ...
|
The pursuers and respondents (hereafter ‘the pursuers’) were a plumbing and heating company. The defenders and appellants (hereafter ‘the defenders’) were a housing development company. The parties entered into a contract under which the pursuers were to carry out plumbing and heating works at a development of sixty five flats to be constructed in three separate blocks by the defenders. Work was completed by the pursuers, without defect or complaint, on the first and sec ...
|
The defenders ran the Castle Terrace car park in Edinburgh, which was owned by the City of Edinburgh Council and leased to the defenders. The Castle Terrace car park was successful and profit-making, and the defenders proposed to develop it further. The defenders submitted that the pursuers had represented that because of their close links with the Council, they would be uniquely placed to deliver the proposed development of the Castle Terrace car park. The parties agreed that in exchange for th ...
|
Prior to June 2005 both parties were involved in the business of the manufacture and sale of paper products. These products included board which had a smooth coating, making it suitable for high quality printing to produce e.g. greeting cards, catalogues and packaging for cosmetics and pharmaceuticals etc. In June 2005, the pursuers agreed to acquire the defenders’ Gemini brand of paper board and its goodwill, together with customer information related to the brand and certain related as ...
|
The reclaimers were whisky distillers. The respondents were beverage distributors, who operated in the United States of America. The parties entered into a Distributorship Agreement, in which the reclaimers granted to the respondents the exclusive right to purchase John Barr Scotch Whiskies in bottles for resale in the domestic market of the United States of America. The reclaimers averred that in order lawfully to distribute and sell alcohol in the United States of America, the respondents wo ...
|
The pursuers sought payment from the defenders, in terms of Clause 7 of their Minute of Agreement. This clause related to the payment of certain sums, and the calculation of those sums, following the dissolution of the parties’ partnership - Pagan Osborne, a firm of solicitors. The dispute focused on whether the calculation of the sums due to the pursuers included the non-legal work of the firm, in its reference to “the work in progress of the Firm at the Retirement Date”. The ...
|
Reclaiming motion:- The pursuers agreed to sell the defenders 11 acres of lands in Aberdeenshire, through missives ultimately concluded in August 2004. A price of £365,000 was stipulated in the missives however this was subject to a price-uplift, which could become payable if the defenders subsequently sold the property. The land was duly sold by the defenders in December 2006, for the price of £483,020. Under the provisions of the parties’ contract, certain allowable costs wer ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 |