Sharp v. Wardrope & Ors [2004] ScotCS 234 (28 October 2004)

Sharp v. Wardrope & Ors [2004] ScotCS 234 (28 October 2004)

No binding contract of compromise was concluded because the minuters' letter of 10 March 1999 constituted a qualified acceptance and counter-offer by introducing a stipulation regarding liability that was never accepted by the respondent. The suspensive condition regarding the CRU certificate also precluded contract formation until purified. The offer was not accepted within a reasonable time, and the correspondence did not establish consensus in idem.

Citation
[2004] ScotCS 234
Parties
Pursuer: Catherine Sharp or Chisholm and Another; Defender: Colin Wardrope and Others
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 October 2004
Procedural Posture
Damages Action Arising From Road Traffic Accident / Hearing on Minute and Answers Regarding Alleged Extra Judicial Settlement
Outcome
Minute refused; respondent's plea-in-law sustained; minuters' pleas-in-law repelled.
Legal Topics
Formation of Contract, Offer and Acceptance, Settlement of Claims, Reasonable Time for Acceptance, Counter Offer, Qualified Acceptance
Contract Law Civil Procedure Formation of Contract Offer and Acceptance Settlement of Claims Reasonable Time for Acceptance Counter Offer Qualified Acceptance

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

Parties

Catherine Sharp or Chisholm and Another

Pursuer

Colin Wardrope and Others

Defender

Procedural Posture

Damages Action Arising From Road Traffic Accident / Hearing on Minute and Answers Regarding Alleged Extra Judicial Settlement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether correspondence constituted a binding contract for extra-judicial settlement of the claim
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's initial settlement offer was accepted within a reasonable time

Ratio Decidendi

No binding contract of compromise was concluded because the minuters' letter of 10 March 1999 constituted a qualified acceptance and counter-offer by introducing a stipulation regarding liability that was never accepted by the respondent. The suspensive condition regarding the CRU certificate also precluded contract formation until purified. The offer was not accepted within a reasonable time, and the correspondence did not establish consensus in idem.

Court Disposition

Minute refused; respondent's plea-in-law sustained; minuters' pleas-in-law repelled.

Orders

  • Refuse the craves of the Minute.
  • Sustain the plea-in-law for the respondent in her Answers.