Drake & Scull Engineering Ltd v NG Bailey Ltd [2000] ScotCS 104 (12 April 2000)

Drake & Scull Engineering Ltd v NG Bailey Ltd [2000] ScotCS 104 (12 April 2000)

The court held that the disputed averments regarding discussions and agreements prior to contract execution may be relevant to the interpretation of which design documents were incorporated into the contract, particularly in determining the meaning of 'Mechanical Service Works'. Therefore, it would be wrong to exclude these averments from probation at this stage.

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 104
Parties
Pursuer: Drake and Scull Engineering Limited; Defender: N. G. Bailey Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
12 April 2000
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / Debate on Relevancy of Averments Prior to Proof
Outcome
Defenders' motion to exclude averments from probation refused.
Legal Topics
Incorporation of Documents, Interpretation of Contract Terms, Relevancy of Averments, Surrounding Circumstances in Contract Interpretation
Contract Law Construction Law Incorporation of Documents Interpretation of Contract Terms Relevancy of Averments Surrounding Circumstances in Contract Interpretation

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Drake and Scull Engineering Limited

Pursuer

N. G. Bailey Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / Debate on Relevancy of Averments Prior to Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the fax of 20 March 1995 and its attachments were incorporated into the contract and to what extent
  2. 2 Whether averments regarding discussions and agreements prior to contract execution are relevant to interpretation of the contract

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the disputed averments regarding discussions and agreements prior to contract execution may be relevant to the interpretation of which design documents were incorporated into the contract, particularly in determining the meaning of 'Mechanical Service Works'. Therefore, it would be wrong to exclude these averments from probation at this stage.

Court Disposition

Defenders' motion to exclude averments from probation refused.

Orders

  • Case put out By Order for further discussion of future procedure.