Stagg & Robson, Ltd v. Stirling and Others [1908] ScotLR 488 (28 February 1908)

Stagg & Robson, Ltd v. Stirling and Others [1908] ScotLR 488 (28 February 1908)

Section 100 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 does not permit parole evidence to alter or contradict the terms of a written agreement; it only allows proof of the true relations of parties on the bill, not to vary a written contract. The written 'heads of settlement' are unambiguous and cannot be contradicted by alleged verbal agreements. Therefore, the defence is irrelevant and proof is incompetent.

Citation
[1908] ScotLR 488
Parties
Pursuer: Stagg & Robson, Limited; Defender: John Stirling, Brookdene, Twickenham, and two others (directors of Scott, Stirling, & Company, Limited)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 February 1908
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Note) Against Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor Allowing Proof Before Answer
Outcome
interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled; decree granted in terms of the conclusions of the summons
Legal Topics
Bills of Exchange, Parole Evidence, Guarantee, Contract Interpretation
Commercial Law Evidence Law Bills of Exchange Parole Evidence Guarantee Contract Interpretation

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

Parties

Stagg & Robson, Limited

Pursuer

John Stirling, Brookdene, Twickenham, and two others (directors of Scott, Stirling, & Company, Limited)

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Note) Against Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor Allowing Proof Before Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether parole evidence is admissible to prove a verbal agreement to renew bills of exchange where a written agreement exists.
  2. 2 Whether section 100 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 permits alteration of a written contract by parole evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 100 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 does not permit parole evidence to alter or contradict the terms of a written agreement; it only allows proof of the true relations of parties on the bill, not to vary a written contract. The written 'heads of settlement' are unambiguous and cannot be contradicted by alleged verbal agreements. Therefore, the defence is irrelevant and proof is incompetent.

Court Disposition

interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled; decree granted in terms of the conclusions of the summons

Orders

  • Proof before answer refused as incompetent.
  • Decree for payment granted to pursuers as concluded in the summons.