Keenan v Aberdeen Slating Company Ltd [1999] ScotCS 255 (4 November 1999)

Keenan v Aberdeen Slating Company Ltd [1999] ScotCS 255 (4 November 1999)

The pursuer was not entitled to retain part of the purchase price at settlement; damages for loss of profit were only recoverable up to the date of settlement, as after that date the defenders were no longer in breach. The damages were not too remote, as the defenders were aware of the pursuer's intended use of the premises for business purposes.

Citation
[1999] ScotCS 255
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: Alan Keenan; Defenders and Appellants: Aberdeen Slating Company Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
04 November 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal (from Sheriff Court) / Opinion of the Court on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; decree of implement to be in exchange for £160,000; damages to be adjusted to exclude post-settlement period; cross-appeal on income tax deduction allowed; case put out By Order for agreed damages figure.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Damages, Remoteness of Damages, Specific Implement, Sale of Heritable Property
Contract Law Property Law Breach of Contract Damages Remoteness of Damages Specific Implement Sale of Heritable Property

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Keenan

Pursuer and Respondent

Aberdeen Slating Company Limited

Defenders and Appellants

Procedural Posture

Appeal (from Sheriff Court) / Opinion of the Court on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer was entitled to retain part of the purchase price as damages at settlement
  2. 2 Whether damages for loss of profit after settlement were recoverable
  3. 3 Whether the damages claimed were too remote

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer was not entitled to retain part of the purchase price at settlement; damages for loss of profit were only recoverable up to the date of settlement, as after that date the defenders were no longer in breach. The damages were not too remote, as the defenders were aware of the pursuer's intended use of the premises for business purposes.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; decree of implement to be in exchange for £160,000; damages to be adjusted to exclude post-settlement period; cross-appeal on income tax deduction allowed; case put out By Order for agreed damages figure.

Orders

  • Decree of implement in exchange for payment of £160,000.
  • Damages to be recalculated to exclude period after settlement.