ROBERT DRYSDALE AGAINST ROBERT PURVIS AND ANOTHER, ROBERT PURVIS AND OTHERS AGAINST JOHN HUGH FERRIS AND ANOTHER, ROBERT PURVIS AGAINST ROBERT DRYSDALE [2022] ScotCS CSOH_66 (13 September 2022)

ROBERT DRYSDALE AGAINST ROBERT PURVIS AND ANOTHER, ROBERT PURVIS AND OTHERS AGAINST JOHN HUGH FERRIS AND ANOTHER, ROBERT PURVIS AGAINST ROBERT DRYSDALE [2022] ScotCS CSOH_66 (13 September 2022)

The court found that the common intention of the parties at the time of the missives and disposition was that the steading, as identified in the 7 August 1995 offer, was to be included in the sale to the Purvises. The omission of the steading from the qualified acceptance and disposition was a solicitor's error and did not reflect the parties' agreement. The requirements for rectification under section 8 of the 1985 Act were met.

Citation
[2022] ScotCS CSOH_66
Parties
Pursuer/defender: Robert Drysdale; Pursuer/defender: Robert Purvis; Pursuer: Isobel Purvis; Defender/pursuer: Cavelstone Farm Ltd; Defender: John Hugh Ferris
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
13 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil (multiple Actions: Declarator, Rectification, Contract) / Judgment After Proof (trial)
Outcome
Rectification granted; declarator refused to Drysdale; disposition and missives to be rectified to include the steading as per the 7 August 1995 offer.
Legal Topics
Rectification of Documents, Missives of Sale, Heritable Property, Common Intention, Sequestration, Interpretation of Contracts
Property Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Rectification of Documents Missives of Sale Heritable Property Common Intention Sequestration +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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Drysdale

Pursuer/defender

Robert Purvis

Pursuer/defender

Isobel Purvis

Pursuer

Cavelstone Farm Ltd

Defender/pursuer

John Hugh Ferris

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil (multiple Actions: Declarator, Rectification, Contract) / Judgment After Proof (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the missives and disposition accurately reflected the parties' common intention regarding the sale of Cavelstone Farm and its steading
  2. 2 Whether rectification should be granted under section 8 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1985
  3. 3 Whether Robert Drysdale is entitled to declarator as heritable proprietor of the remaining farm area

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the common intention of the parties at the time of the missives and disposition was that the steading, as identified in the 7 August 1995 offer, was to be included in the sale to the Purvises. The omission of the steading from the qualified acceptance and disposition was a solicitor's error and did not reflect the parties' agreement. The requirements for rectification under section 8 of the 1985 Act were met.

Court Disposition

Rectification granted; declarator refused to Drysdale; disposition and missives to be rectified to include the steading as per the 7 August 1995 offer.

Orders

  • Rectification of the missives and disposition to include the steading area identified in the 7 August 1995 offer.
  • Refusal of declarator sought by Robert Drysdale as heritable proprietor of the disputed area.