Miller Fabrications v J & D Pierce (Contacts) Ltd [2010] ScotCS CSIH_27 (31 March 2010)

Miller Fabrications v J & D Pierce (Contacts) Ltd [2010] ScotCS CSIH_27 (31 March 2010)

The pursuers' insistence on not performing their contractual obligations unless a banker's reference was provided, when they were not contractually entitled to such a reference, constituted an anticipatory repudiation of the contract. The defenders were therefore entitled to rescind the contract.

Citation
[2010] ScotCS CSIH_27
Parties
Pursuers and Appellants: Miller Fabrications Limited; Defenders and Respondents: J & D Pierce (Contracts) Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
31 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Principal to Inner House, Court of Session
Outcome
Appeal refused; decree of absolvitor for defenders affirmed; pursuers found liable in expenses.
Legal Topics
Anticipatory Breach, Repudiation, Damages for Breach of Contract, Contractual Terms
Contract Law Anticipatory Breach Repudiation Damages for Breach of Contract Contractual Terms

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miller Fabrications Limited

Pursuers and Appellants

J & D Pierce (Contracts) Limited

Defenders and Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Principal to Inner House, Court of Session

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuers' refusal to deliver the mezzanine floor without a banker's reference constituted an anticipatory breach of contract entitling the defenders to rescind the contract.

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers' insistence on not performing their contractual obligations unless a banker's reference was provided, when they were not contractually entitled to such a reference, constituted an anticipatory repudiation of the contract. The defenders were therefore entitled to rescind the contract.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; decree of absolvitor for defenders affirmed; pursuers found liable in expenses.

Orders

  • Decree of absolvitor in favour of defenders
  • Pursuers found liable in expenses of the appeal