The defenders were a company who purchased and resold land for development. They had collaborated with the pursuers to identify potential vendors for the defenders’ land. The two parties had entered into an agreement to regulate their relationship, signed in June and July 2005. A dispute subsequently arose between the parties in relation to the treatment of VAT due on payments made under this agreement, and in this action, the defenders sought to have the agreement rectified. In esto, th ...
|
In this action, the pursuers made a claim for payment against the defender on the basis that he had entered into a personal guarantee in favour of the pursuers in support of a company, Glam Leisure Limited, of which he was a director. The defender accepted that he had signed the document purporting to be a personal guarantee. The question at issue was the proper construction of the document.It was submitted for the defender that he had made clear to the pursuers that he did not want to trade wit ...
|
In this Stated Case on points of law arising from arbitration proceedings, brought under section 3 of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1972, the respondents had been granted a servitude in relation to pipelines running between two of their installations. The land of the tenement under the grant of servitude had been latterly acquired by the reclaimers. The dispute between the parties related to the proper interpretation and application of a certain clause in the grant of servitude be ...
|
The pursuer and the defenders were parties to a loan agreement, entered into on 20 June 2007; the loan enabled the pursuer to buy shares in Kenmore Property Group Limited, a company in which the pursuer was a director. Under the agreement, a clause gave the defender discretion to waive re-payment of the loan, and if that discretion was undertaken, the defender was to indemnify the pursuer from any tax liability that arose there from. The repayment of the loan was duly waived, and the pursuer s ...
|
The defenders were a club, whose members had purchased the use of timeshare apartments situated on the edge of Loch Rannoch. The pursuers were a company set up in 2002 specifically for the purposes of managing the business of the defenders, a relationship which was regulated by a “Management Agreement”. This Management Agreement was brought to an end by rescission letter in October 2008, following disagreements that had arisen between the parties. In this action, the pursuers dispute ...
|
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 ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 |