Summit Lease Finance (No 2) Ltd v Lithoprint (Scotland) Ltd [1999] ScotCS 175 (16 July 1999)

Summit Lease Finance (No 2) Ltd v Lithoprint (Scotland) Ltd [1999] ScotCS 175 (16 July 1999)

It is not possible to determine the enforceability of clause 1 as a penalty or forfeiture clause without proof of the factual matrix, including whether the agreements form a single contract and the nature of the rights at stake; proof before answer is necessary.

Citation
[1999] ScotCS 175
Parties
Pursuer: Summit Lease Finance (No.2) Limited; Defender: Lithoprint (Scotland) Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 July 1999
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / Interlocutory; Debate on Relevancy and Plea for Proof Before Answer
Outcome
Proof before answer allowed; no decree de plano granted.
Legal Topics
Penalty Clauses, Forfeiture, Finance Leasing, Composite Contracts, Relief Against Forfeiture
Contract Law Commercial Law Penalty Clauses Forfeiture Finance Leasing Composite Contracts Relief Against Forfeiture

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Summit Lease Finance (No.2) Limited

Pursuer

Lithoprint (Scotland) Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / Interlocutory; Debate on Relevancy and Plea for Proof Before Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 1 of the agency agreement is unenforceable as a penalty or forfeiture clause
  2. 2 Whether the three agreements constitute a single composite contract
  3. 3 Whether the loss of the right to a rebate is out of proportion to the breach

Ratio Decidendi

It is not possible to determine the enforceability of clause 1 as a penalty or forfeiture clause without proof of the factual matrix, including whether the agreements form a single contract and the nature of the rights at stake; proof before answer is necessary.

Court Disposition

Proof before answer allowed; no decree de plano granted.

Orders

  • Proof before answer on all issues, including whether clause 1 is unenforceable as a penalty or forfeiture clause.