Contract (Commercial)

Thomas Park and Another for Partial Recall Inhibition [2008] CSOH 121

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:16:00 GMT

Petition for Partial Recall of Inhibition:- The petitioners were spouses who formally traded from a restaurant in Bothwell which they occupied under a long lease. In 2006 another couple obtained an interest in the business and entered into a partnership with the petitioners. Later in the same year an action was raised by the respondent in Hamilton Sheriff Court against all four partners seeking payment of a sum of £204,000. The petitioners were inhibited by the respondents by letters of inhibition registered on 18 September 2007 following registration of a notice of inhibition on 31 August 2007. It was the petitioners position that they entered into missives dated 7, 10 and 31 August 2007 for the sale of the lease. Here the petitioners sought partial recall of the inhibition in so far as it related to the subjects of the lease as the inhibition became effective on 31 August 2007 as a result of the notice of inhibition and because the missives were not concluded before that date, the inhibition was effective to prevent implement of the missives. The question before the court was when the inhibition took effect. The general position is that where missives are concluded before the date on which an inhibition becomes effective, they will not be struck at by the inhibition. Here the court considered whether the minute of sale was a genuine transaction or one which had been manufactured to defeat the fair operation of the inhibition.

Royal Insurance UK Limited v. Amec Construction Scotland Ltd and Others [2008] CSOH 107

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:43:00 GMT

Amendment Procedure:- The pursuers raised the action in September 2002, and was founded upon alleged breaches of collateral undertakings which the respective defenders granted in the pursuers' favour relative to the conduct of the reconstruction works. Further, the pursuers asserted a contractual right, by virtue of the same collateral undertakings, to be indemnified against the losses which they sustained. Previously, in November 2007, the court rejected the defenders' challenge to the pursuers' title and interest to pursue the action notwithstanding the absence of any reference in the instance to the trustee capacity in which their claim was said to be advanced. However, the court went on to hold that the court could no ignore the pursuers' omission to design themselves properly in the instance and rendered the summons defective in form and thereby incompetent. Here the pursuers sought to amend the Record by adding at the end of their own instance the words "... as trustees for Royal Insurance plc conform to an Agreement between Royal Insurance plc and the pursuers dated 31 December 1992." It was submitted on their behalf that these additional words supplemented their designation, in curing a technical want of form, and there could be no valid bar to amendment along such lines. It contrast it was submitted that the pursuers' motion to amend should be refused outright and, further, that the action should be dismissed as both incompetent and out of time, the proposed amendment being an illegitimate attempt to cure, if not a fundamental lack of title or interest to sue, then a radical incompetence having substantial legal consequences. Further, any contractual or other obligation on their part towards the pursuers as trustees had been extinguished by the operation of the five-year prescription under Sections 6 and 11 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973. Here the court considered whether the pursuers' claim had prescribed and, if so, whether the court should exercise it's discretion in the pursuers' favour and allow the amendment.

K.K.A. Limited v MacDonald Hotels Ltd [2008] CSOH 108

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:21:00 GMT

Proof:- In this action the pursuers sought to recover architects fees from the defenders in relation to a hotel development at a golf and country club in Cheshire. Around 1994, the pursuers, a firm of architects began carrying out work for the defenders, a hospitality company which owns and develops hotels. Evidence was led on behalf of both parties. The pursuers' claimed that they were entitled to the sum sued for as being fees due under the normal percentage fee arrangement that operated between parties at planning determination stage. The defenders contended that the pursuers had failed to establish either what the normal arrangement was or that it applied to the particular development. Here the court considered what the terms of the contract, in relation to professional fees due, were. In particular, whether or not any departure from the normal fee arrangement was agreed between the parties, having regard to a previous course of consistent conduct between the parties.

Richard Durkin v DSG Retail Limited & HFC Bank plc, Aberdeen Sheriff Court, 26 March 2008

Wed, 14 May 2008 17:09:00 GMT

Contract of Sale and Consumer Credit Contract - whether rescinded – measure of damages

The Pursuer purchased a laptop computer from the First Defenders’ retail outlet, PC World, on the understanding that he could return it if it did not have an internal modem. He paid £50 and signed a credit agreement with the Second Defenders. The laptop did not have an internal modem but PC World refused to accept the return of the computer and did not take any steps to repay the Pursuer or to cancel the credit agreement. The Pursuer left the laptop in the shop and made no payments to the Second Defenders. The Pursuer advised the Second Defenders that he was terminating the credit contract. The Pursuer sought a Declarator that he was entitled to rescind, and had rescinded, both the contract of sale and the consumer credit agreement. He also sought damages. The Pursuer had funded his lifestyle by making use of zero percent interest free credit on transferred balances on credit cards by transferring the balance due on his credit card to another credit card on a regular basis. As the Pursuer had made no payments to the Second Defenders, they arranged for his name to be placed on a credit register. As a result, he was unable to open new accounts with credit card companies and other lending institutions. He has to pay a significant amount of interest over the 4½ year period of the dispute. The Sheriff held that it had been a material term of the contract between the Pursuer and the First Defenders that the laptop should have an inbuilt modem. As it did not, the First Defenders were in material breach of that contract and the Pursuer was entitled to reject the computer, to treat the contract as repudiated and to rescind the contract. The contract between the Pursuer and the Second Defenders was a debtor, creditor supplier agreement in terms of Section 12(C) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. As the First Defenders were in material breach of their contract with the Pursuer, he was not obliged to make payments under the contract with the Second Defenders and was entitled to rescind that contract by virtue of Section 75(1) of the 1974 Act. The Second Defenders had negligently allowed misrepresentation to be made, namely that the Pursuer was in default under a credit agreement. They had taken no steps to withdraw this, despite the Pursuer’s repeated requests. The Pursuer’s loss had resulted from the Second Defenders’ fault and breach of duty. There were three elements to the Pursuer’s claim for damages – his loss of zero interest credit card use; the loss of his proposed purchase of a house in Spain with the capital gain that would have given him; and general injury to his credit.

Forster v Ferguson & Forster & Others – Glasgow Sheriff Court, 27 February 2008

Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:19:00 GMT

Contract - Partnership Agreement- Mutuality of Contract - Retention of performance on basis of Pursuer's breach of fiduciary duty

The Pursuer was a former partner in a firm of Stranraer solicitors. He had acted fraudulently when dealing with clients. He accepted that he was in breach of the fiduciary duty he owed to his partners and, therefore, in breach of the partnership agreement. He raised an action in the Commercial Court against the firm and his former partners for payment of a pension. The Defenders refused to make payment and, among other arguments, relied on the principle of mutuality of contract. At first instance, the Defenders were successful. The Pursuer appealed. Having considered the terms of the partnership agreement, the Sheriff Principal allowed the appeal. He considered that he was bound by the decisions in cases of Bank of East Asia 1997 SLT 1213 and Macari v Celtic Football & Athletic Club 1999 SC 628. In essence the question to be considered was "was the contractual obligation undertaken by the Defenders to pay to the Pursuer a pension, the counterpart of the Pursuer's obligation not to defraud clients and not to breach the fiduciary duty he owed to his partners?". The Sheriff Principal concluded that retention of performance of an obligation due under the contract was not an appropriate defence in the particular circumstances of this case. The case continued on the basis of other arguments put forward by the Defenders.

William Stewart & Jemina Stewart v. Pure Limited [2008] CSOH 49

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:43:00 GMT

Summary Decree - Contract :- In this action the pursuers sought damages for a breach of contract by the defenders. The pursuers, as travel agents, were approached by 189 clients who were to take part in the island games in Rhodes, Greece. The pursuers approached the defenders, who were aircraft brokers, to provide aircraft for the outward flight from Scotland to Rhodes and the return flight to Scotland and by exchange of emails in January 2007, an agreement was reached between the pursuers and the defenders. The outbound flight took place, however, the defenders failed to provide an aircraft for the return flight and in consequence, the pursuers had to make alternative transportation arrangements for their clients to return home and the pursuers claimed £55,893.00 as damages from the defenders for their breach of contract, for the costs of obtaining an alternative aircraft and one nights accomodation for the passengers on Rhodes. Here the pursuers sought summary decree in terms of Rule of Court 21.2. The court considered whether it was satisfied that there was no defence to the action disclosed in the defences and that on the available material the defender was bound to fail and there was nothing of relevance to be decided at proof. The defenders raised the question of causation and contributory negligence in that the pursuers failed to confirm the booking for the return flight in accordance with an implied term of such contracts and by failing to confirm with the defenders that a return flight had been booked, the pursuers failed to provide accurate information to their clients to allow them to make an informed judgment in their choice of travel arrangements. Here the court considered whether to grant the motion for summary decree.

Supersave Mini Market & Others v. Walters Holland (Life and Pensions) Limited & Another [2008] CSOH 48

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:42:00 GMT

Procedure Roll - Contract:- In this action the pursuers were property investors, the first defenders were insurance brokers and the second defender was a director and employee of the first defenders. The pursuers owned a block of property in Wishaw and insurance of the property was arranged through the defenders. The premises were affected by fires, on 11 September 2002 , 28 November 2002 and 10 December 2002. Here the pursuers sought to recover from the defenders the losses they suffered by reason of the fact that the building was uninsured and made a case in fault and breach of contract against the first defender on the basis that:- (1) no reasonably competent insurance broker would have failed to disclose to the pursuers all information they received pertinent to the insurance; (2) no such broker would have failed to obtain insurance for the property; (3) no such broker would have failed to advise the pursuers as soon as reasonably practicable that the property was uninsured; and (4) any such broker would have been aware that the fact that the flats formed part of a property in respect of which insurers had already declined cover would be a material fact to the pursuers and no such broker would have failed to disclose that fact to the insurers. The case against the second defenders was based on fraud on the basis that he falsely and misleadingly advised the pursuers that the whole property was insured when he knew this not to be the case. Here the case called on the defenders' preliminary pleas on the pursuers' pleadings. For the first defenders it was submitted that the averments were insufficient to establish a case against him of non disclosure regarding the flats and the averments were not sufficient to enable the pursuers to prove that the first defender knew the flats were the same as those which had previously formed part of the Stag Hotel. For the second defender, it was averred that there were insufficient averments of fraud in relation to the flats. Here the court considered whether the averments in relation to non-disclosure and fraud were sufficient.

Ronald Evan Wilson v. Dunbar Bank plc [2008] CSIH 27

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:41:00 GMT

Reclaiming Motion - Contract:- The pursuer built a block of flats in 1995 with the assistance of borrowings obtained from the defenders, which were secured over the new development. The pursuer was unable to repay the borrowings and the defenders called up their security, and took possession of the subjects in September 1996. The subjects were thereafter sold, however, the pursuer was dissatisfied with the price obtained and here the pursuer sought damages from the defenders on the basis that they failed to sell the subjects for the best price that could reasonably have been obtained, contrary to their duty in delict and under section 25 of the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970. At first instance a judge held that the development had been sold as a whole to an investor, without any meaningful attempt to sell the individual flats on the residential market, where a higher price would have been expected to be achieved and awarded damages to the pursuer. Here the defenders appealed, not against the judge's decision 's that the defenders failed to perform the duties in question, but, rather, that he erred in his assessment of damages and interest. Here the court considered whether the judge's approach to the quantification of damages and the calculation of interest was flawed.

Anne and Eddie Strachan v Highlands Joinery Products Limited – Inverness Sheriff Court, 29 February 2008

Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:58:00 GMT

Appeal against Sheriff's decision to allow PBA - alleged breach of contract - relevancy and specification - averments re loss of profits from business

The Pursuers/Respondents contracted with the Defenders/Appellants for the supply of windows and doors for their property. They claimed that the windows and doors were not of satisfactory quality, in breach of an implied term of the contract in terms of Section 14(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and that, as a result, they had sustained various losses, including loss of profits from a business which they had intended to run from the property. The Defenders challenged the relevancy and specification of the Pursuers’ pleadings and, following a Debate, the Sheriff allowed a Proof Before Answer. The Defenders appealed, arguing that the Sheriff had erred in law in allowing a Proof on the Pursuers’ averments in support of their claim for loss of profit. The Pursuers claimed that they had purchased the property so that they could live there and operate a business from the property. They averred that the Defenders had been aware of their intention to operate a business from the property. Section 53(A) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 deals with the measure of damages for a seller’s breach of contract and Section 54 indicates that nothing in the Act affects the right of the buyer to recover interest or special damages in any case where, by law, interest or special damages may be recoverable. These sections open up a claim for damages under the rules in Hadley v Baxendale 1854 9 Ex 341. The crucial question was whether, if it was proved that the Defenders knew that the Pursuers intended to run a business from the property, this would be enough to support a finding that the Defenders should have realised that, if the windows and doors were not of satisfactory quality, the property would not be wind and water tight and would be unfit for use by the Pursuers for business activities and, as a result, they would suffer a loss of profits. The Sheriff Principal concluded that the Pursuers’ averments, if proved, would be sufficient to support their claim for loss of profits and refused the appeal.

Scottish and Southern Energy plc v. Lerwick Engineering and Fabrication Limited [2008] CSOH 41

Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:16:00 GMT

Procedure Roll:- The pursuers entered into a contract with the defenders in terms of which the defenders carried out work on boilers at their premises. As part of the work the defenders carried out work on a boiler and a fire thereafter occurred. It was averred that the pursuers suffered loss and damage and they claimed from the defenders under and in terms of the contract between the parties. At procedure roll counsel for the pursuers invited the court to to grant decree de plano and restrict inquiry to quantum. It was submitted that on the basis of the admitted facts, the contractual obligation to indemnify arose and no proof in respect of that was required as the terms of the contract were admitted. Counsel for the defenders sought dismissal of the action, failing which a proof before answer on restricted averments. It was submitted on behalf of the defenders that the principle was that a party cannot claim indemnity for losses suffered through negligence of that party unless either the indemnity expressly provides for recovery of such losses or there is no other loss that the clause might relate to. Clause 13(ii) of the contract provided that the defenders shall indemnify the pursuers against "loss or damage to property of the pursuers... howsoever caused...by any of the employees, servants, agents or sub-contractors of the defenders while on the pursuers' premises in performance of this Order". Here the pursuers were seeking an indemnity in respect of loss and damage to their property caused by the defenders' servants.

Knowles Food Services Limited v. CGU Insurance plc [2008] CSIH 20

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:33:00 GMT

Appeal from Sheriff Court:- This was an appeal from the Sheriff at Aberdeen in relation to the construction of an insurance policy offering cover to the reclaimers in respect of premises they owned in Aberdeen. The pursuers' claims were dismissed by the Sheriff. The relevant damage was cracking to a supporting beam caused by vibration coming from building operations nearby. The pursuers' claim was purely for the cost of remedial work to the beam. It was submitted on behalf of the pursuers that the sheriff had misconstrued the exception by interpreting the words "own collapse or cracking" as meaning collapse or cracking of the building itself, thus, on his interpretation, excluding cover under Exception E and there was no need to proceed to the defined contingencies which modified the exceptions in exception E which has been quoted. It was submitted on behalf of the defenders that the sheriff had reached the right conclusion by reason of the fact that the policy's terms had to be looked at as a whole and the proper construction excluded, under Exception E, cracking of the building itself and thereafter extended cover only if the circumstances of the particular claim fell within the defined contingencies. Here the court considered whether the construction of the insurance policy that was favoured by the Sheriff was correct.

The Aberdeenshire Council v Bruce Plant Limited – Banff Sheriff Court, 8th February 2008

Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:47:00 GMT

Appeal – Action for Payment under Contract – Whether Obligation had been extinguished by Prescription – Sections 6(1) and 10(1) of the Prescription & Limited (Scotland) Act 1973.

The Pursuers/ Appellants raised an action for payment against the Defenders/Respondents in October 2006. Following a Diet of Debate, the action was dismissed on the basis that the Defenders’ obligation to make payment to the Pursuers had been extinguished by prescription in terms of Section 6(1) of the 1973 Act. The Pursuers appealed against the Sheriff's decision. The material facts in relation to the issue of prescription were not in dispute. The Pursuers had carried out various works as sub-contractors to the Defenders, who were the main contractors in a contract with SH Ltd. It was agreed that the Defenders’ obligation to make payment to the Pursuers for those works had become enforceable in September 1997. There had been a dispute between the Defenders and SH Ltd over payments due by SH Limited to the Defenders in terms of the main contract and this had led to court proceedings. SH Ltd had counterclaimed and one element in the counterclaim related to the works carried out by the Pursuers as sub-contractors. It appeared that, in light of this, the Defenders disputed the amounts due in terms of invoices raised by the Pursuers. It was accepted that the Defenders' obligation to the Pursuers had been extinguished unless the terms of correspondence between representatives of the parties had constituted relevant acknowledgements within the meaning of section 10(1)(b) of the 1976 Act. It was agreed that Section 10(1)(b) required that there should have been an admission in writing by or on behalf of the debtor and that this must have been unequivocal. It was also agreed that, in construing the letters, it was legitimate to consider them in the context of prior correspondence between the parties and that it was enough that the debtor had acknowledged that the obligation still subsisted in principle, even if he did not acknowledge that a specific sum was due. Having considered the terms of the relevant correspondence, the Sheriff Principal decided that letters sent by the Pursuers’ representative satisfied the criteria set out in Section 10(1)(b) and that there had been a relevant acknowledgement of the Defenders’ obligation to the Pursuers in 2001 and 2003. The letters constituted unequivocal written admissions, clearly acknowledging that the Defenders’ obligation to the Pursuers still subsisted. The appeal was upheld and the case remitted to the Sheriff for further procedure.

Tawne Overseas Holdings Limited v. The Firm of Newmilne Farms & Others [2008] CSOH 12

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 07:46:00 GMT

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 rent. To enable mortgage payments to be maintained the pursuers decided to try to achieve an arrangement which would ensure that rent was coming in on a regular basis and the parties agreed to a reduction in the rent payable under the leases to £20,000 per annum for the house lease, and £65,000 per annum for the farm lease, payable quarterly in advance from 28 November 2000. The problems continued resulting in the present action. In this action the pursuers sought:- (1) declarator that the house lease has been irritated because of lateness in the payment of rent, and for removal of the defenders from the subjects; (2) an action for payment of outstanding rental in respect of the house lease; (3) an action seeking declarator of irritancy and removing in respect of the farm lease; and (4) a payment action in respect of the farm lease. Here the case proceeded to prof in respect of these actions.

Pine Energy Consultants Ltd –v- Talisman Energy (UK) Limited 2008 CSOH 10

Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:42:00 GMT

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 the defenders to the pursuer (sic)of the sum of TWENTY FIVE MILLION POUNDS (£25,000,000) STERLING with interest and expenses. At this time the Defenders were seeking to have their general plea to the relevancy and specification of the pursuers' averments upheld and have the action dismissed.

Wyman-Gordon Limited v. Proclad International Limited (no. 2) [2007] CSOH 209

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:35:00 GMT

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 terms of the parties' contract, and to express a concluded view on the question of whether the defenders had waived any right to rely on one of the contractual terms that were in dispute.

Scott Greck v. Henderson Asia Pacific Equity Partners (FP} LP+ Henderson Equity Partners (GP) Limited +Roger Greville [2008] CSOH 2

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:29:00 GMT

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. The court considered a number of issues including whether the pursuer was a Bad Leaver as defined in The Limited Partnership Agreement or if he was automatically a “good leaver”, and whether the discretion should have been exercised in the pursuer's favour.

Seabourne Developments Ltd v. The Shiprow Development Co Ltd [2007] CSIH 90

Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:48:00 GMT

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 provided to them and they contended that the action should go no further until the figures were available. The sheriff granted decree for certain sums and the appellants then appealed the sheriff's interlocutor of 8 September 2006. In this appeal from the sheriff court it was submitted for the appellants that they had been unable to recognise, understand, or accept the figures put forward in the respondents' pleadings and productions and, whilst it was not the appellants' position that the respondents' case was irrelevant, the manner in which the sums due was quantified was disputed. It was further submitted that having chosen an action for payment of specific sums rather than a count, reckoning and payment, it was for the respondents to aver and prove how those sums were calculated and the respondents had failed to do so here. It was submitted on behalf of the respondents that the defences were irrelevant, and the granting of decree de plano by the sheriff was appropriate.

William Lippe Architects Limited v. James Innes [2007] CSIH 84

Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:07:00 GMT

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 respondent from the conclusion of the summons as the court considered that consensus in idem had not been established between the parties as to remuneration. It was against that decision that the reclaimers reclaimed here. The key issue was whether a binding agreement had been reached between Mr. Lippe, on behalf of the former firm, and the respondent for the payment of remuneration by the respondent for architectural services provided on a "no win no fee" basis.

Marjandi Limited v Bon Accord Glass Limited – Aberdeen Sheriff Court, 15 October 2007

Thu, 15 Nov 2007 20:42:00 GMT

Action for Payment - The Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993 - Definition of Commercial Agent
The 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 for the provision of information. In determining whether the Pursuers were commercial agents to whom the Regulations applied, the Sheriff had to consider whether the contracts which the Pursuers negotiated the Defenders' behalf were contracts for the sale and purchase of goods. The Sheriff held that each contract was, in fact, a single contract for the hire of works, rather than for the sale of goods and, therefore, not a contract to which the Regulations applied. The Sheriff also looked at whether the Pursuers’ activities as agents were to be considered secondary, in which case the Regulations would not apply. Having considered the relationship between the Pursuers and the Defenders, and the guidance given in the Schedule to the Regulations, the Sheriff concluded that the activities of the Pursuers as agents could not be considered secondary.

City Wall Properties (Scotland) Limited v. Pearl Assurance plc [2007] CSIH 79

Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:11:00 GMT

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 construction of the rent review provision. After sundry procedure following a proof before answer the Lord Ordinary pronounced an interlocutor dated 25 October 2005 assoilzieing the defenders from the pursuers' conclusion for declarator and at the same time dismissing a counter-claim. Here the pursuers appealled against that interlocutor. The primary issue raised in the reclaiming motion was a short question of construction of a clause in a commercial contract. The particular subject of the dispute was the opening words of clause 3 that stated:- "The rent so payable shall be subject to review at the instance of the landlords at the relevant review date by addition per space of the product of 96 multiplied by 'the car park factor'". Here the court considered the construction of the clause from the view of a reasonable commercial person, looking at the matter objectively.

Autolink Concessionaires (M6) plc v. Amey Construction Limited & Others [2007] CSOH 81

Fri, 04 May 2007 00:00:00 GMT

Commercial Action - Contract

Countrywide North Limited v. GWM Developments Limited [2007] CSOH 60

Fri, 23 Mar 2007 00:00:00 GMT

Breach of Contract - Debate

Giftex Corporation v. Divex Limited [2007] CSOH 48

Fri, 02 Mar 2007 00:00:00 GMT

Proof Before Answer - Breach of Contract

Colin Fraser (AP) v. The Professional Golfers' Association Limited [2006] CSOH 129

Sat, 25 Nov 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Breach of Contract

Central Car Auctions Limited v. House of Sher (UK) Limited [2006] CSOH 137

Tue, 05 Sep 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Preliminary Proof - Breach of Contract

Jessie Duncan and Another v. The MFV Marigold PD 145 and Others [2006] CSOH 128

Tue, 22 Aug 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Debate - Dissolution of Partnership

MacKays Stores Limited v. Toward Limited [2006] CSOH

Fri, 30 Jun 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Commercial Action - Action for Payment - Debate

MacKays Stores Limited v. Toward Limited [2006] CSOH

Fri, 30 Jun 2006 00:00:00 GMT

Commercial Action - Action for Payment - Debate

Alan Baxter Wilson v. Jaymarke Estates Limited + James Shaw

Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Company Law:

ITP SA v. Technip Offshore UK Limited formerly known as Coflexip Stena Offshore Limited

Tue, 15 Nov 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Expenses:

APC Limited (in receivership) v. Amey Construction Limited + Sir Robert McAlpine Limited + Taylor Woodrow Civil Engineering Limited + Barr Limited all together traing as Amey-Robert McAlpine - TaylorWoodrow - Barr M6 Joint Venture

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Action for Recovery:

Anthony M Chapment v Scotleg Sales Limited

Fri, 30 Sep 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Civil

Caterleisure Limited v. Glasgow Prestwick International Airport Limited

Fri, 01 Jul 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Commercial Contract Action:

Elmlford Limited v. McLaglan Investments Limited

Thu, 23 Jun 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Contract:

John Brady + Mrs Moira Anderson Grant or Brady v. Hutton and Phillip and Others

Tue, 03 May 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Breach of Contract/Debate:

Alba Management Consultants Limited v. Carillon PLC + Carillon Service Limited

Wed, 20 Apr 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Verbal Agreement:

Scrabster Harbour Trust + Mowlem Marine a Trading Division of Mowlem PLC V Mowlem PLC Trading as Mowlem Marine + Scrabster Harbour Trust

Wed, 23 Mar 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Two Commercial Actions Relating to the Same Dispute:

The Dundee Taxi Cab Limited v. Dundee City Council + Dundee Taxi Association

Fri, 18 Mar 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Appeal By Second Defendants:

Alan Jones + Mrs. Brenda Margaret Jones v. Andrew Stuart Wood + Mrs. Margaret Wood + John Derek Thomson Bogie

Fri, 18 Mar 2005 00:00:00 GMT

Rectification: