Thomson v. William Thomson & Co. [1900] ScotLR 37_723 (30 May 1900)

Thomson v. William Thomson & Co. [1900] ScotLR 37_723 (30 May 1900)

The pursuer, by accepting subsequent annuity payments without reservation after the alleged breach, waived any right to enforce the forfeiture clause. Additionally, the defenders' withholding of a disputed portion of the annuity pending litigation and prompt payment upon judgment did not amount to a failure to pay within the meaning of the agreement.

Citation
[1900] ScotLR 37_723
Parties
Pursuer: William Thomson senior; Defenders: William Thomson & Company (William Thomson junior and John Thomson, and Charles Davidson)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
30 May 1900
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Note) From Lord Ordinary's Decision
Outcome
appeal refused; action dismissed
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Waiver, Acquiescence, Personal Bar, Forfeiture Clause, Payment of Annuity
Contract Law Breach of Contract Waiver Acquiescence Personal Bar Forfeiture Clause Payment of Annuity

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

Parties

William Thomson senior

Pursuer

William Thomson & Company (William Thomson junior and John Thomson, and Charles Davidson)

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Note) From Lord Ordinary's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders failed to pay the annuity within the meaning of the agreement so as to trigger the forfeiture clause
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer, by accepting subsequent payments without reservation, waived his right to enforce the forfeiture clause

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer, by accepting subsequent annuity payments without reservation after the alleged breach, waived any right to enforce the forfeiture clause. Additionally, the defenders' withholding of a disputed portion of the annuity pending litigation and prompt payment upon judgment did not amount to a failure to pay within the meaning of the agreement.

Court Disposition

appeal refused; action dismissed

Orders

  • Refuse the reclaiming-note
  • Sustain the second and fourth pleas-in-law for the defenders