McPhee & Anor v. Black & Anor [2006] ScotSC 102 (31 July 2006)

McPhee & Anor v. Black & Anor [2006] ScotSC 102 (31 July 2006)

The sellers failed to follow the contractual mechanism for rescission as required by Condition 25; the letter of 27 January 2005 did not constitute clear and unequivocal notice of rescission, nor did it refer to the contractual condition or material breach. Accordingly, the contract was not validly rescinded and the sellers could not claim damages for breach at that stage.

Citation
[2006] ScotSC 102
Parties
Respondents/pursuers: Jack Haroldsen McPhee & Another; Appellants/defenders: Graham John Black & Another
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
31 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal Against Sheriff's Decision on Probation of Averments and Interpretation of Contract
Outcome
Case put out for further hearing; question of expenses reserved; appeal likely to be allowed subject to further submissions.
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Missives, Rescission of Contract, Material Breach, Notice Requirements, Damages for Breach of Contract
Contract Law Property Law Interpretation of Missives Rescission of Contract Material Breach Notice Requirements Damages for Breach of Contract

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jack Haroldsen McPhee & Another

Respondents/pursuers

Graham John Black & Another

Appellants/defenders

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal Against Sheriff's Decision on Probation of Averments and Interpretation of Contract

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sellers validly rescinded the contract in accordance with the contractual mechanism
  2. 2 Whether the letter of 27 January 2005 constituted acceptance of a material breach and rescission
  3. 3 Whether prior written notice of rescission was required under Condition 25

Ratio Decidendi

The sellers failed to follow the contractual mechanism for rescission as required by Condition 25; the letter of 27 January 2005 did not constitute clear and unequivocal notice of rescission, nor did it refer to the contractual condition or material breach. Accordingly, the contract was not validly rescinded and the sellers could not claim damages for breach at that stage.

Court Disposition

Case put out for further hearing; question of expenses reserved; appeal likely to be allowed subject to further submissions.

Orders

  • Further hearing scheduled before the Sheriff Principal on 4 October 2006 at 10:30 am
  • Question of expenses occasioned by the appeal reserved