ABERDEEN JOINERY WINDOWS AND DOORS LIMITED v. MR. A. SALAAM [2009] ScotSC 103 (30 April 2009)

ABERDEEN JOINERY WINDOWS AND DOORS LIMITED v. MR. A. SALAAM [2009] ScotSC 103 (30 April 2009)

The pursuers were entitled to payment of the contract price less a reasonable deduction for snagging (£3,525), as the work was of satisfactory quality and any defects were minor and remediable. The defender was not entitled to reject the goods or withhold the entire price, as there was no material breach, and his counterclaim for full replacement costs was unsupported. The contract terms were not unfair or in breach of statutory protections. Even if the contract did not exist, the defender would be unjustifiably enriched by retaining the benefit of the work without payment.

Citation
[2009] ScotSC 103
Parties
Pursuer: Aberdeen Joinery Windows and Doors Limited; Defender: Mr. A. Salaam
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
30 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial Contract Dispute) / Judgment After Proof (trial)
Outcome
Judgment for pursuers; counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Supply of Goods and Services, Unfair Contract Terms, Damages, Counterclaim, Consumer Guarantees
Contract Law Consumer Law Unjust Enrichment Breach of Contract Supply of Goods and Services Unfair Contract Terms Damages Counterclaim +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aberdeen Joinery Windows and Doors Limited

Pursuer

Mr. A. Salaam

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial Contract Dispute) / Judgment After Proof (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuers are entitled to payment under the contract for supply and installation of windows, subject to deduction for snagging.
  2. 2 Whether the defender was entitled to reject the windows and/or withhold payment due to alleged defects or material breach.
  3. 3 Whether the contract terms were unfair or breached statutory protections for consumers.

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers were entitled to payment of the contract price less a reasonable deduction for snagging (£3,525), as the work was of satisfactory quality and any defects were minor and remediable. The defender was not entitled to reject the goods or withhold the entire price, as there was no material breach, and his counterclaim for full replacement costs was unsupported. The contract terms were not unfair or in breach of statutory protections. Even if the contract did not exist, the defender would be unjustifiably enriched by retaining the benefit of the work without payment.

Court Disposition

Judgment for pursuers; counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • Decree for payment by the defender to the pursuers of £19,816.27 with interest at 8% per annum from date of citation until payment.
  • Counterclaim dismissed.