UPS Supply Chain Solutions v. Glasgow Airport Ltd [2004] ScotCS 223 (01 October 2004)

UPS Supply Chain Solutions v. Glasgow Airport Ltd [2004] ScotCS 223 (01 October 2004)

The court held that the agreement for lease, including clause 2.2.3, was not superseded or negated by the execution of the lease or the collateral warranties. Clauses 1.3 and 14 of the agreement for lease expressly preserved its provisions in the event of inconsistency or non-performance, and the collateral warranties did not replicate the landlord's obligations under the agreement for lease. The pursuer's pleadings relying on clause 2.2.3 were therefore relevant and not excluded by the lease or collateral warranties.

Citation
[2004] ScotCS 223
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; pursuer's pleadings on clause 2.2.3 allowed to proceed.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Lease Agreements, Collateral Warranties, Repairing Obligations, Supersession of Agreements
Contract Law Commercial Law Property Law Breach of Contract Lease Agreements Collateral Warranties Repairing Obligations Supersession of Agreements

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, allowing the pursuer to sue for breach of landlord's obligations regarding construction quality.
  2. 2 Whether the lease and collateral warranties superseded or negated the landlord's obligations under the agreement for lease.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the agreement for lease, including clause 2.2.3, was not superseded or negated by the execution of the lease or the collateral warranties. Clauses 1.3 and 14 of the agreement for lease expressly preserved its provisions in the event of inconsistency or non-performance, and the collateral warranties did not replicate the landlord's obligations under the agreement for lease. The pursuer's pleadings relying on clause 2.2.3 were therefore relevant and not excluded by the lease or collateral warranties.

Court Disposition

Defender's argument rejected; pursuer's pleadings on clause 2.2.3 allowed to proceed.

Orders

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