Hamilton & Anor v Rodwell & Ors [1999] ScotCS 247 (27 October 1999)

Hamilton & Anor v Rodwell & Ors [1999] ScotCS 247 (27 October 1999)

The court held that the £10,500 placed on deposit receipt was the first defender's money, as acknowledged in the disposition and consistent with the contractual obligations. The post-missive correspondence did not alter the substance of the agreement, and the pursuers' submissions were unsound. The pursuers' case was therefore irrelevant and dismissed.

Citation
[1999] ScotCS 247
Parties
Pursuer: Mark Hamilton; Pursuer: Karen Hamilton; Defender: Dennis G. Rodwell
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
27 October 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil / Procedure Roll Debate Following Amendment and Remit From Inner House
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Deposit Receipt, Retention of Purchase Price, Interpretation of Missives, Discharge in Disposition
Property Law Contract Law Deposit Receipt Retention of Purchase Price Interpretation of Missives Discharge in Disposition

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

Parties

Mark Hamilton

Pursuer

Karen Hamilton

Pursuer

Dennis G. Rodwell

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Procedure Roll Debate Following Amendment and Remit From Inner House

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the £10,500 placed on deposit receipt remained the property of the pursuers or passed to the first defender
  2. 2 Interpretation of the discharge in the disposition and the effect of post-missive correspondence

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the £10,500 placed on deposit receipt was the first defender's money, as acknowledged in the disposition and consistent with the contractual obligations. The post-missive correspondence did not alter the substance of the agreement, and the pursuers' submissions were unsound. The pursuers' case was therefore irrelevant and dismissed.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed

Orders

  • Sustain the first and fifth pleas-in-law for the defenders
  • Dismiss the action