Gordon v. John Cran & Co. [1904] ScotLR 42_123 (24 November 1904)

Gordon v. John Cran & Co. [1904] ScotLR 42_123 (24 November 1904)

The Court held that the documents and conduct between the parties prima facie indicated a contract of apprenticeship, and that it was not necessary for the mutual obligations to be expressly stated in writing. The pursuer's averments were relevant and entitled him to proof.

Citation
[1904] ScotLR 42_123
Parties
Pursuer/appellant: William Gillespie Gordon; Defenders/respondents: John Cran & Company
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
24 November 1904
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session, Inner House, Second Division
Outcome
Appeal sustained; interlocutors recalled; case remitted for proof and conjunct probation.
Legal Topics
Apprenticeship, Master and Servant, Constitution of Contract, Proof of Contract, Breach of Contract
Employment Law Contract Law Apprenticeship Master and Servant Constitution of Contract Proof of Contract Breach of Contract

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Gillespie Gordon

Pursuer/appellant

John Cran & Company

Defenders/respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session, Inner House, Second Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a contract of apprenticeship existed between the parties.
  2. 2 Whether the contract required an express stipulation of the master's obligation to teach and the apprentice's obligation to learn.
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer's averments were relevant to entitle him to proof.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the documents and conduct between the parties prima facie indicated a contract of apprenticeship, and that it was not necessary for the mutual obligations to be expressly stated in writing. The pursuer's averments were relevant and entitled him to proof.

Court Disposition

Appeal sustained; interlocutors recalled; case remitted for proof and conjunct probation.

Orders

  • Sheriff's interlocutor recalled.
  • Proof allowed to pursuer.