Emcor Drake And Scull Ltd v. Edinburgh Royal Joint Venture& Ors [2005] ScotCS CSOH_139 (28 October 2005)

Emcor Drake And Scull Ltd v. Edinburgh Royal Joint Venture& Ors [2005] ScotCS CSOH_139 (28 October 2005)

Clause 1.01 of the Schedule of Notes/Clarifications, as incorporated in the subcontract, referred only to the spatial co-ordination of services in design drawings with CA status, not to detailed installation drawings. The contract placed responsibility for detailed co-ordination and working drawings on the pursuers. No warranty was granted by the defenders that the tender drawings were sufficiently developed for immediate installation. Evidence relating to pre-contract negotiations and deleted tender provisions was inadmissible for contractual interpretation.

Citation
[2005] ScotCS CSOH_139
Parties
Pursuer: Emcor Drake & Scull Limited; First Defender: Edinburgh Royal Joint Venture; Second Defender: Balfour Beatty Construction Limited; Third Defender: Haden Young Limited; Fourth Defender: Morrison Construction Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Commercial Construction Contract Dispute / Proof Before Answer (preliminary Determination of Warranty Issue)
Outcome
Declarator refused; pursuers not entitled to warranty as claimed.
Legal Topics
Contractual Interpretation, Warranties, Tender Documentation, Subcontractor Obligations, Variation Claims
Contract Law Construction Law Contractual Interpretation Warranties Tender Documentation Subcontractor Obligations Variation Claims

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Emcor Drake & Scull Limited

Pursuer

Edinburgh Royal Joint Venture

First Defender

Balfour Beatty Construction Limited

Second Defender

Haden Young Limited

Third Defender

Morrison Construction Limited

Fourth Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Construction Contract Dispute / Proof Before Answer (preliminary Determination of Warranty Issue)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders warranted that the vast majority of tender drawings were fully co-ordinated and approved for construction
  2. 2 Proper construction of clause 1.01 of the Schedule of Notes/Clarifications
  3. 3 Admissibility of evidence relating to pre-contract negotiations

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 1.01 of the Schedule of Notes/Clarifications, as incorporated in the subcontract, referred only to the spatial co-ordination of services in design drawings with CA status, not to detailed installation drawings. The contract placed responsibility for detailed co-ordination and working drawings on the pursuers. No warranty was granted by the defenders that the tender drawings were sufficiently developed for immediate installation. Evidence relating to pre-contract negotiations and deleted tender provisions was inadmissible for contractual interpretation.

Court Disposition

Declarator refused; pursuers not entitled to warranty as claimed.

Orders

  • Proof before answer concluded; pursuers' claim for warranty rejected; parties to proceed on remaining issues if any.