Wills v Strategic Procure Ment (UK) Ltd [2013] ScotCS CSOH_26 (13 February 2013)

Wills v Strategic Procure Ment (UK) Ltd [2013] ScotCS CSOH_26 (13 February 2013)

Steuart's Trustees v Hart remains good law; a contract may be reduced where one party knowingly takes advantage of the other's essential error, even if the error was not induced. The issue of whether the error in this case is of the relevant type should be determined after proof of the facts.

Citation
[2013] ScotCS CSOH_26
Parties
Pursuer: Phil Wills; Defender: Strategic Procurement (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
13 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory (motion to Dismiss, Proof Before Answer Sought)
Outcome
Motion for dismissal refused; proof before answer allowed; case put out by order for possible amendment.
Legal Topics
Error in Contract, Unilateral Error, Personal Bar, Reduction of Contract, Res Judicata
Contract Law Error in Contract Unilateral Error Personal Bar Reduction of Contract Res Judicata

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phil Wills

Pursuer

Strategic Procurement (UK) Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory (motion to Dismiss, Proof Before Answer Sought)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether knowledge of an uninduced error by one party can justify reduction of a contract under Scots law
  2. 2 Whether Steuart's Trustees v Hart remains good law after Stewart v Kennedy
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer's solicitor's error was of a type that, if known to the other party, allows challenge to the contract

Ratio Decidendi

Steuart's Trustees v Hart remains good law; a contract may be reduced where one party knowingly takes advantage of the other's essential error, even if the error was not induced. The issue of whether the error in this case is of the relevant type should be determined after proof of the facts.

Court Disposition

Motion for dismissal refused; proof before answer allowed; case put out by order for possible amendment.

Orders

  • Refusal of defender's motion for dismissal of the action
  • Case to be put out by order for consideration of amendment