DRAGADOS (UK) LTD AGAINST DC EIFEKET AGGREGATE AS [2021] ScotCS CSOH_117 (16 November 2021)

DRAGADOS (UK) LTD AGAINST DC EIFEKET AGGREGATE AS [2021] ScotCS CSOH_117 (16 November 2021)

Defender's averments regarding pre-contractual negotiations are inadmissible for contract construction due to the exclusionary rule and express contract terms; no relevant case of personal bar is pled as there is no representation or justifiable reliance; averments regarding pursuer's obligations are irrelevant and lack specification.

Citation
[2021] ScotCS CSOH_117
Parties
Pursuer: Dragados (UK) Limited; Defender: DC Eifeket Aggregates AS
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / Debate on Relevancy of Averments
Outcome
Averments in answers 3.1, 3.2, 3.7, and 4.8 excluded from probation; case put out By Order for further procedure and expenses.
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Contract, Exclusionary Rule for Pre Contractual Negotiations, Personal Bar (estoppel), Acquiescence
Contract Law Commercial Law Interpretation of Contract Exclusionary Rule for Pre Contractual Negotiations Personal Bar (estoppel) Acquiescence

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dragados (UK) Limited

Pursuer

DC Eifeket Aggregates AS

Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / Debate on Relevancy of Averments

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether pre-contractual negotiations are admissible in construing contract terms
  2. 2 Whether defender has pled a relevant case of personal bar
  3. 3 Whether pursuer had obligations of inspection under contract

Ratio Decidendi

Defender's averments regarding pre-contractual negotiations are inadmissible for contract construction due to the exclusionary rule and express contract terms; no relevant case of personal bar is pled as there is no representation or justifiable reliance; averments regarding pursuer's obligations are irrelevant and lack specification.

Court Disposition

Averments in answers 3.1, 3.2, 3.7, and 4.8 excluded from probation; case put out By Order for further procedure and expenses.

Orders

  • Sustain pursuer's third and fourth pleas in law
  • Exclude from probation averments in answers 3.1, 3.2, 3.7, and 4.8 and related averments