Wills v Strategic Procure Ment (UK) Ltd [2013] ScotCS CSPH_26 (13 February 2013)

Wills v Strategic Procure Ment (UK) Ltd [2013] ScotCS CSPH_26 (13 February 2013)

Steuart's Trustees v Hart remains good law; a contract may be reduced where one party knowingly takes advantage of an essential error by the other, even if the error is uninduced. The present case should proceed to proof before answer to determine whether the error was of the relevant type and known to the defender.

Citation
[2013] ScotCS CSPH_26
Parties
Pursuer: Phil Wills; Defender: Strategic Procurement (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
13 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory (proof Before Answer Granted)
Outcome
Proof before answer granted; motion for dismissal refused.
Legal Topics
Error in Contract Formation, Unilateral Error, Personal Bar, Reduction of Contract
Contract Law Error in Contract Formation Unilateral Error Personal Bar Reduction of Contract

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 (proof Before Answer Granted)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a contract can be reduced where one party knowingly takes advantage of the other's uninduced error
  2. 2 Whether Steuart's Trustees v Hart remains good law after Stewart v Kennedy
  3. 3 What type of error justifies reduction if known to the other party

Ratio Decidendi

Steuart's Trustees v Hart remains good law; a contract may be reduced where one party knowingly takes advantage of an essential error by the other, even if the error is uninduced. The present case should proceed to proof before answer to determine whether the error was of the relevant type and known to the defender.

Court Disposition

Proof before answer granted; motion for dismissal refused.

Orders

  • Case put out by order for consideration of amendment.
  • Proof before answer to be allowed with all pleas outstanding.