Boyd & Forrest v. Glasgow and South-Western Railway Co. [1914] ScotLR 281 (07 February 1914)

Boyd & Forrest v. Glasgow and South-Western Railway Co. [1914] ScotLR 281 (07 February 1914)

The pursuers were induced to enter into the contract by essential error caused by the defenders' misrepresentation and concealment regarding the nature of the strata and the existence of the water-pipe. Although the contract was completed, equitable restitution is possible by readjustment of sums paid and quantum meruit. The defenders' failure to disclose material information constituted a breach of an essential condition, barring them from relying on the contract as the basis of charge. However, the work done was not so different in character as to render the contract wholly inapplicable. The pursuers are entitled to rescind the contract and claim quantum meruit for the work done, and to...

Citation
[1914] ScotLR 281
Parties
Pursuers (plaintiffs): Boyd & Forrest; Defenders (defendants): Glasgow and South-Western Railway Company
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
07 February 1914
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract Dispute / Judgment After Remittal From House of Lords to Court of Session Inner House, Second Division
Outcome
For the pursuers in part; contract rescinded for essential error and quantum meruit allowed; damages awarded for non-disclosure of water-pipe; claim that work was wholly different from contract rejected.
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Error, Restitutio in Integrum, Quantum Meruit, Non Disclosure, Damages, Construction Contracts
Contract Law Equity Misrepresentation Error Restitutio in Integrum Quantum Meruit Non Disclosure Damages +1 more

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 39 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Boyd & Forrest

Pursuers (plaintiffs)

Glasgow and South-Western Railway Company

Defenders (defendants)

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract Dispute / Judgment After Remittal From House of Lords to Court of Session Inner House, Second Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract was induced by essential error due to innocent misrepresentation and non-disclosure by the defenders.
  2. 2 Whether the pursuers are entitled to rescind the contract and claim on a quantum meruit basis.
  3. 3 Whether the defenders' failure to disclose material facts (including the existence of a water-pipe) constituted a breach of contract justifying damages or rescission.

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers were induced to enter into the contract by essential error caused by the defenders' misrepresentation and concealment regarding the nature of the strata and the existence of the water-pipe. Although the contract was completed, equitable restitution is possible by readjustment of sums paid and quantum meruit. The defenders' failure to disclose material information constituted a breach of an essential condition, barring them from relying on the contract as the basis of charge. However, the work done was not so different in character as to render the contract wholly inapplicable. The pursuers are entitled to rescind the contract and claim quantum meruit for the work done, and to...

Court Disposition

For the pursuers in part; contract rescinded for essential error and quantum meruit allowed; damages awarded for non-disclosure of water-pipe; claim that work was wholly different from contract rejected.

Orders

  • Sustain branch (b) of the pursuers' third plea-in-law (rescission for essential error and quantum meruit).
  • Award damages to pursuers for loss caused by non-disclosure of the water-pipe.