DUNDEE CITY COUNCIL, ANGUS COUNCIL AND PERTH AND KINROSS COUNCIL CARRYING ON BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF TAYSIDE CONTRACTS AGAINST D GEDDES (CONTRACTORS) LIMITED [2017] ScotCS CSOH_108 (18 August 2017)

DUNDEE CITY COUNCIL, ANGUS COUNCIL AND PERTH AND KINROSS COUNCIL CARRYING ON BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF TAYSIDE CONTRACTS AGAINST D GEDDES (CONTRACTORS) LIMITED [2017] ScotCS CSOH_108 (18 August 2017)

The pursuers failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the failures in surface dressing were caused by any defect or unsatisfactory quality in the aggregate chippings supplied by the defender. The court was not satisfied that either of the specific mechanisms advanced (dusting up or stripping) was established, nor that all other causes could be eliminated. The cause of the failures was unproven, and the pursuers' case failed on the burden of proof.

Citation
[2017] ScotCS CSOH_108
Parties
Pursuer: Dundee City Council, Angus Council and Perth and Kinross Council carrying on business under the name and style of Tayside Contracts; Defender: D Geddes (Contractors) Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action (breach of Contract/damages) / Judgment After Proof (trial) on Liability
Outcome
Defender entitled to decree of absolvitor; pursuers' case dismissed.
Legal Topics
Implied Terms, Sale of Goods Act 1979, Satisfactory Quality, Fitness for Purpose, Burden of Proof, Expert Evidence
Contract Law Commercial Law Implied Terms Sale of Goods Act 1979 Satisfactory Quality Fitness for Purpose Burden of Proof Expert Evidence

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dundee City Council, Angus Council and Perth and Kinross Council carrying on business under the name and style of Tayside Contracts

Pursuer

D Geddes (Contractors) Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action (breach of Contract/damages) / Judgment After Proof (trial) on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the aggregate chippings supplied were of satisfactory quality under s.14(2) Sale of Goods Act 1979
  2. 2 Whether the chippings were fit for the particular purpose under s.14(3) Sale of Goods Act 1979
  3. 3 Whether the failures in surface dressing were caused by a defect in the chippings

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the failures in surface dressing were caused by any defect or unsatisfactory quality in the aggregate chippings supplied by the defender. The court was not satisfied that either of the specific mechanisms advanced (dusting up or stripping) was established, nor that all other causes could be eliminated. The cause of the failures was unproven, and the pursuers' case failed on the burden of proof.

Court Disposition

Defender entitled to decree of absolvitor; pursuers' case dismissed.

Orders

  • Sustain defender’s third and fourth pleas-in-law
  • Repel pursuers’ first plea-in-law