BRUCE AND COMPANY v. WILLIAM AND ELIZABETH FERGUSON [2013] ScotSC 86 (23 September 2013)

BRUCE AND COMPANY v. WILLIAM AND ELIZABETH FERGUSON [2013] ScotSC 86 (23 September 2013)

The missives of let between the respondents and their existing tenant did not constitute a 'disposal' of an interest in land within the meaning of the contract or the statutory framework. The sheriff was entitled to interpret the contract as requiring a disposal of an interest in land, and the facts did not support the appellants' entitlement to remuneration. The sheriff's findings and interpretation were supported by evidence and law.

Citation
[2013] ScotSC 86
Parties
Pursuers and Appellants: Bruce and Company; Defenders and Respondents: William and Elizabeth Ferguson
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
23 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff's Interlocutor
Outcome
Appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutors adhered to.
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Contracts, Estate Agency Agreements, Remuneration Clauses, Sole Selling Rights, Disposal by Lease, Statutory Compliance
Contract Law Commercial Law Interpretation of Contracts Estate Agency Agreements Remuneration Clauses Sole Selling Rights Disposal by Lease Statutory Compliance

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bruce and Company

Pursuers and Appellants

William and Elizabeth Ferguson

Defenders and Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff's Interlocutor

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the missives of let between respondents and an existing tenant constituted a 'disposal' triggering remuneration under the sole selling agreement
  2. 2 Proper interpretation of 'disposal by way of lease' in the contract
  3. 3 Whether the sheriff erred in law in interpreting the contract and applying statutory framework

Ratio Decidendi

The missives of let between the respondents and their existing tenant did not constitute a 'disposal' of an interest in land within the meaning of the contract or the statutory framework. The sheriff was entitled to interpret the contract as requiring a disposal of an interest in land, and the facts did not support the appellants' entitlement to remuneration. The sheriff's findings and interpretation were supported by evidence and law.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutors adhered to.

Orders

  • Appellants found liable to respondents in expenses of the appeal.
  • Account of expenses to be given in and remitted to the Auditor of Court to report and tax.