Dornier GmbH v Cannon [1991] ScotCS CSIH_2 (16 April 1991)

Dornier GmbH v Cannon [1991] ScotCS CSIH_2 (16 April 1991)

The Lord Ordinary was correct to repel the defender's fifth plea-in-law and allow a proof before answer on the whole averments, as the pursuers' averment regarding lack of actual authority was sufficient to put the defender on notice, and issues of ostensible authority and the relationship between the documents should be determined after proof of the facts.

Citation
[1991] ScotCS CSIH_2
Parties
Pursuer: Dornier GmbH; Defender: Cannon
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 April 1991
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Interlocutory (plea in Law, Proof Before Answer)
Outcome
reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor adhered to with modification
Legal Topics
Authority of Agents, Ostensible Authority, Relevancy of Pleadings, Proof Before Answer
Contract Law Agency Law Authority of Agents Ostensible Authority Relevancy of Pleadings Proof Before Answer

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dornier GmbH

Pursuer

Cannon

Defender

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Interlocutory (plea in Law, Proof Before Answer)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuers' averment regarding lack of authority of their employees to sign certain documents should be excluded from probation as irrelevant or lacking specification.
  2. 2 Whether the defender's fifth plea-in-law should be sustained to exclude the pursuers' averment from proof.

Ratio Decidendi

The Lord Ordinary was correct to repel the defender's fifth plea-in-law and allow a proof before answer on the whole averments, as the pursuers' averment regarding lack of actual authority was sufficient to put the defender on notice, and issues of ostensible authority and the relationship between the documents should be determined after proof of the facts.

Court Disposition

reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor adhered to with modification

Orders

  • Refused the reclaiming motion.
  • Adhered to the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor in so far as it repelled the defender's fifth plea-in-law.