Baird v Drumpellier & Mount Vernon Estates Ltd [2000] ScotCS 71 (16 March 2000)

The defenders' counterclaim for rectification lacks necessary specification and does not aver any factual basis for a different common intention than that expressed in the missives; thus, it is irrelevant and must be dismissed without inquiry.

Citation: [2000] ScotCS 71
Parties: Pursuer: John Ian Baird; Defenders: Drumpellier & Mount Vernon Estates Limited
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judgment Date: 16 March 2000
Procedural Posture: Civil / Debate on Relevancy and Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim
Outcome: Counterclaim dismissed; proof before answer allowed in principal action restricted to quantum of damages.
Legal Topics: Rectification of Missives, Implied Warranty of Title, Common Intention, Specification of Pleadings

Contract Law Property Law Rectification of Missives Implied Warranty of Title Common Intention Specification of Pleadings

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 8 Party arguments 2

Parties

John Ian Baird

Pursuer

Drumpellier & Mount Vernon Estates Limited

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Civil / Debate on Relevancy and Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim

Legal Issues

1 Whether the defenders' counterclaim for rectification of missives is relevantly pled under section 8(1)(a) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions)(Scotland) Act 1985
2 Whether there is a tenable case for rectification based on the documentation and averments of common intention

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Counterclaim dismissed; proof before answer allowed in principal action restricted to quantum of damages.

Orders

Dismissal of defenders' counterclaim (as amended)
Proof before answer allowed in principal action restricted to quantum of damages