Moyarget Developments Ltd v. Mathis & Ors [2005] ScotCS CSOH_136 (20 October 2005)

Moyarget Developments Ltd v. Mathis & Ors [2005] ScotCS CSOH_136 (20 October 2005)

The court found that no binding contract was concluded between the parties on or around 7 February 2002 as to the pursuers' remuneration. There was no consensus in idem on the essential terms, particularly regarding when and how the pursuers would be paid. The evidence showed ongoing negotiations and lack of agreement on key points, including exclusivity and timing of payment. The defenders' position that payment was conditional on grant of planning permission was not accepted as a concluded agreement. Accordingly, the pursuers' claim for payment cannot proceed on the basis of an express contract, but may be considered on alternative grounds such as quantum meruit or unjust enrichment.

Citation
[2005] ScotCS CSOH_136
Parties
Pursuer: Moyarget Developments Limited; Defender: Mrs Rove Mathis and Others
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
20 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil (outer House, Court of Session) / Preliminary Issue Determination on Existence and Terms of Agreement
Outcome
No binding contract found as to remuneration; claim on express contract fails at this stage.
Legal Topics
Implied Contract, Quantum Meruit, Remuneration for Services, Oral Agreements, Unjust Enrichment, Termination of Instructions
Contract Law Unjust Enrichment Implied Contract Quantum Meruit Remuneration for Services Oral Agreements Termination of Instructions

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moyarget Developments Limited

Pursuer

Mrs Rove Mathis and Others

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil (outer House, Court of Session) / Preliminary Issue Determination on Existence and Terms of Agreement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether any agreement was reached on or around 7 February 2002 as to the basis for remuneration of the pursuers for work on the Dingwall site
  2. 2 If so, what the terms of that agreement were

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that no binding contract was concluded between the parties on or around 7 February 2002 as to the pursuers' remuneration. There was no consensus in idem on the essential terms, particularly regarding when and how the pursuers would be paid. The evidence showed ongoing negotiations and lack of agreement on key points, including exclusivity and timing of payment. The defenders' position that payment was conditional on grant of planning permission was not accepted as a concluded agreement. Accordingly, the pursuers' claim for payment cannot proceed on the basis of an express contract, but may be considered on alternative grounds such as quantum meruit or unjust enrichment.

Court Disposition

No binding contract found as to remuneration; claim on express contract fails at this stage.

Orders

  • Parties to proceed to address alternative bases of claim, including quantum meruit and unjust enrichment, if so advised.