McCalls Ltd v. Capture Imaging Ltd [2009] ScotSC 22 (28 July 2009)

McCalls Ltd v. Capture Imaging Ltd [2009] ScotSC 22 (28 July 2009)

The court held that the statements made by Mr Yule regarding print quality were expressions of opinion, not representations of fact, and were honestly held. No duty of care arose as Mr Yule did not possess or profess special skill or knowledge, and it was not reasonable for the pursuers to rely on his opinion in the circumstances. The pursuers did not enter into the contracts in reliance on any misrepresentation, and no actionable loss was proved. Accordingly, the defenders were entitled to absolvitor.

Citation
[2009] ScotSC 22
Parties
Pursuer: McCalls Limited; Defender: Capture Imaging Ltd
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil (scotland) Sheriff Court / Judgment After Proof (trial)
Outcome
Defenders assoilzied (absolved) from the crave; pursuers found liable in expenses.
Legal Topics
Negligent Misrepresentation, Duty of Care, Inducement, Damages, Opinion Vs Fact in Representations
Contract Law Delict (tort) Commercial Law Negligent Misrepresentation Duty of Care Inducement Damages Opinion Vs Fact in Representations

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

McCalls Limited

Pursuer

Capture Imaging Ltd

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil (scotland) Sheriff Court / Judgment After Proof (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statements by the defender's representative constituted negligent misrepresentation
  2. 2 Whether any such misrepresentation induced the pursuer to enter into the contracts
  3. 3 Whether a duty of care existed between the parties in the context of the alleged misrepresentation

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the statements made by Mr Yule regarding print quality were expressions of opinion, not representations of fact, and were honestly held. No duty of care arose as Mr Yule did not possess or profess special skill or knowledge, and it was not reasonable for the pursuers to rely on his opinion in the circumstances. The pursuers did not enter into the contracts in reliance on any misrepresentation, and no actionable loss was proved. Accordingly, the defenders were entitled to absolvitor.

Court Disposition

Defenders assoilzied (absolved) from the crave; pursuers found liable in expenses.

Orders

  • Sustains the defenders' third plea-in-law.
  • Assoilzies the defenders from the crave of the writ.