Clancy v Caird [2000] ScotCS 127 (17 May 2000)

Clancy v Caird [2000] ScotCS 127 (17 May 2000)

The pursuer failed to prove that any misrepresentation was made by the defender or that any such statement was relied upon in entering the contract. The evidence did not establish fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation, nor was there any breach of warranty as the contract expressly excluded such a guarantee. The pursuer's case was unsupported by reliable evidence and the accounts were not shown to be inaccurate.

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 127
Parties
Pursuer: Paul Clancy; Defender: Robin Dempsey Caird
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
17 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Proof
Outcome
Pursuer's action dismissed; decree of absolvitor for defender; decree for defender on counter-claim.
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation, Breach of Warranty, Sale of Business
Contract Law Tort Law Misrepresentation Fraudulent Misrepresentation Negligent Misrepresentation Breach of Warranty Sale of Business

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Clancy

Pursuer

Robin Dempsey Caird

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender made fraudulent or negligent misrepresentations regarding occupancy levels and fee income in the sale of a residential home business
  2. 2 Whether there was a breach of warranty regarding the number of residents at the date of entry
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer relied on the alleged misrepresentations

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to prove that any misrepresentation was made by the defender or that any such statement was relied upon in entering the contract. The evidence did not establish fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation, nor was there any breach of warranty as the contract expressly excluded such a guarantee. The pursuer's case was unsupported by reliable evidence and the accounts were not shown to be inaccurate.

Court Disposition

Pursuer's action dismissed; decree of absolvitor for defender; decree for defender on counter-claim.

Orders

  • Repel pursuer's pleas in principal action and counter-claim
  • Sustain defender's second and third pleas