Parvaiz v Thresher Wines Acquisitions Ltd [2008] ScotCS CSOH_160 (19 November 2008)

Parvaiz v Thresher Wines Acquisitions Ltd [2008] ScotCS CSOH_160 (19 November 2008)

The pursuer's averments are sufficient to allow proof before answer on the basis that mutual error as to the identity of the subjects may entitle him to reduction and repayment, and that exclusion clauses in the auction conditions do not necessarily bar such a remedy where the error is material and goes to the root of the contract.

Citation
[2008] ScotCS CSOH_160
Parties
Pursuer: Khalid Parvaiz; Defender: Thresher Wines Acquisitions Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
19 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil (reduction and Repetition) / Procedure Roll Debate on Relevancy
Outcome
Proof before answer allowed on all averments; all pleas reserved.
Legal Topics
Error in Contract, Reduction of Contract, Auction Sales, Title to Property, Material Error, Mutual Error, Unilateral Error
Contract Law Property Law Error in Contract Reduction of Contract Auction Sales Title to Property Material Error Mutual Error +1 more

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

Parties

Khalid Parvaiz

Pursuer

Thresher Wines Acquisitions Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil (reduction and Repetition) / Procedure Roll Debate on Relevancy

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer is entitled to reduction of the contract and repayment of deposit due to error as to the extent of the subjects sold
  2. 2 Whether mutual or unilateral error as to the identity of the subjects can found reduction despite exclusion clauses in auction conditions

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's averments are sufficient to allow proof before answer on the basis that mutual error as to the identity of the subjects may entitle him to reduction and repayment, and that exclusion clauses in the auction conditions do not necessarily bar such a remedy where the error is material and goes to the root of the contract.

Court Disposition

Proof before answer allowed on all averments; all pleas reserved.

Orders

  • Allow proof before answer on all parties' averments.
  • Reserve all pleas.