Lithoprint (Scotland) Ltd v Summit Leasing Ltd & Ors [1998] ScotCS 36 (23 October 1998)

Lithoprint (Scotland) Ltd v Summit Leasing Ltd & Ors [1998] ScotCS 36 (23 October 1998)

The pursuers are entitled to a proof before answer on their averments that the side letter constituted a collateral agreement or an 'other agreement' within the meaning of the leases, and that the mechanism for calculation could be implied or established by evidence. The defenders' submissions on irrelevancy and lack of specification do not justify dismissal at this stage.

Citation
[1998] ScotCS 36
Parties
Pursuer: Lithoprint (Scotland) Limited; First Defender: Summit Leasing Limited; Second Defender: Summit Lease Finance (No.2) Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
23 October 1998
Procedural Posture
Civil (contract Dispute) / Procedure Roll (pleadings Debate)
Outcome
Proof before answer allowed; defenders' motion for dismissal refused.
Legal Topics
Collateral Agreements, Parol Evidence Rule, Variation of Written Contracts, Agency, Business Efficacy, Implied Terms
Contract Law Commercial Law Collateral Agreements Parol Evidence Rule Variation of Written Contracts Agency Business Efficacy Implied 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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lithoprint (Scotland) Limited

Pursuer

Summit Leasing Limited

First Defender

Summit Lease Finance (No.2) Limited

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil (contract Dispute) / Procedure Roll (pleadings Debate)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a side letter constituted a binding collateral agreement affecting the terms of subsequent finance leases
  2. 2 Whether the side letter was superseded by the written leases
  3. 3 Whether the side letter was void for uncertainty

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers are entitled to a proof before answer on their averments that the side letter constituted a collateral agreement or an 'other agreement' within the meaning of the leases, and that the mechanism for calculation could be implied or established by evidence. The defenders' submissions on irrelevancy and lack of specification do not justify dismissal at this stage.

Court Disposition

Proof before answer allowed; defenders' motion for dismissal refused.

Orders

  • Case to proceed to proof before answer on pursuers' averments.
  • No averments excluded from probation at this stage.