Wade v Waldon [1909] ScotCS CSIH_4 (03 February 1909)

Wade v Waldon [1909] ScotCS CSIH_4 (03 February 1909)

The failure to give notice and bill matter under Rule 6 was not a breach going to the root of the contract and did not entitle the defender to terminate; the defender's refusal to allow the pursuer to perform was an unjustified breach.

Citation
[1909] ScotCS CSIH_4
Parties
Pursuer: George Wade (professionally known as George Robey); Defender: Richard Waldon
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
03 February 1909
Procedural Posture
Contract Dispute / Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; breach by defender established.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Conditions Precedent, Interpretation of Contractual Terms
Contract Law Breach of Contract Conditions Precedent Interpretation of Contractual Terms

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Wade (professionally known as George Robey)

Pursuer

Richard Waldon

Defender

Procedural Posture

Contract Dispute / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to give notice and bill matter under Rule 6 entitled the defender to terminate the contract
  2. 2 Whether the stipulation in Rule 6 was a condition precedent or a mere contractual term

Ratio Decidendi

The failure to give notice and bill matter under Rule 6 was not a breach going to the root of the contract and did not entitle the defender to terminate; the defender's refusal to allow the pursuer to perform was an unjustified breach.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; breach by defender established.

Orders

  • Damages to be ascertained by proof.
  • Lord Ordinary's decision affirmed.