UPS Supply Chain Solutions v. Glasgow Airport Ltd [2004] ScotCS 225 (01 October 2004)

UPS Supply Chain Solutions v. Glasgow Airport Ltd [2004] ScotCS 225 (01 October 2004)

The court held that the provisions of the agreement for lease, including clause 2.2.3, were not superseded by the lease or collateral warranties. The parties expressly provided for the survival and precedence of the agreement for lease in the event of inconsistency. The defender's argument ignored these express provisions. The pursuer's averments relying on clause 2.2.3 were therefore relevant and could proceed.

Citation
[2004] ScotCS 225
Parties
Pursuer: UPS Supply Chain Solutions; Defender: Glasgow Airport Ltd
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
01 October 2004
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action (breach of Contract) / Debate on Relevancy of Pleadings/preliminary Pleas
Outcome
Defender's argument rejected; action not dismissed; case to proceed.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Lease Agreements, Collateral Warranties, Construction Obligations, Interpretation of Contractual Documents
Contract Law Commercial Law Property Law Breach of Contract Lease Agreements Collateral Warranties Construction Obligations Interpretation of Contractual Documents

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

UPS Supply Chain Solutions

Pursuer

Glasgow Airport Ltd

Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action (breach of Contract) / Debate on Relevancy of Pleadings/preliminary Pleas

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the provisions of the agreement for lease, specifically clause 2.2.3, survived the execution of the lease and collateral warranties
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer can rely on the landlord's obligations under the agreement for lease despite the terms of the lease and collateral warranties

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the provisions of the agreement for lease, including clause 2.2.3, were not superseded by the lease or collateral warranties. The parties expressly provided for the survival and precedence of the agreement for lease in the event of inconsistency. The defender's argument ignored these express provisions. The pursuer's averments relying on clause 2.2.3 were therefore relevant and could proceed.

Court Disposition

Defender's argument rejected; action not dismissed; case to proceed.

Orders

  • Case put out By Order for discussion regarding further procedure.