William Lippe Architects Ltd v. Innes [2006] ScotCS CSOH_182 (30 November 2006)

William Lippe Architects Ltd v. Innes [2006] ScotCS CSOH_182 (30 November 2006)

The pursuers failed to prove that a concluded agreement was reached on 22 February 2000 or at any other time as to the specific basis of remuneration claimed. The evidence established that no express agreement was made regarding payment of 3.8% of the sale price or transfer of a plot. The pursuers' pleadings did not support recovery on a quantum meruit basis, and the action as pled must fail.

Citation
[2006] ScotCS CSOH_182
Parties
Pursuer: William Lippe Architects Limited; Defender: James Innes
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
30 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action (court of Session, Outer House) / Judgment After Proof Before Answer
Outcome
Defender assoilzied (absolvitor granted); pursuers' action dismissed.
Legal Topics
Formation of Contract, Remuneration for Professional Services, Implied Terms, Consensus in Idem
Contract Law Professional Services Formation of Contract Remuneration for Professional Services Implied Terms Consensus in Idem

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Lippe Architects Limited

Pursuer

James Innes

Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action (court of Session, Outer House) / Judgment After Proof Before Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a concluded agreement between the parties as to the basis of remuneration for architectural services
  2. 2 Whether the pursuers are entitled to payment of 3.8% of the sale price of land or a plot as claimed
  3. 3 Whether any implied term or alternative basis for payment exists

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers failed to prove that a concluded agreement was reached on 22 February 2000 or at any other time as to the specific basis of remuneration claimed. The evidence established that no express agreement was made regarding payment of 3.8% of the sale price or transfer of a plot. The pursuers' pleadings did not support recovery on a quantum meruit basis, and the action as pled must fail.

Court Disposition

Defender assoilzied (absolvitor granted); pursuers' action dismissed.

Orders

  • Decree of absolvitor in favour of the defender.