DAVID MAGUIRE AGAINST 5PM LTD AND 6 OTHERS [2015] ScotSC 40 (01 June 2015)

DAVID MAGUIRE AGAINST 5PM LTD AND 6 OTHERS [2015] ScotSC 40 (01 June 2015)

A material failure by an expert valuer to follow instructions under a tripartite contract constitutes a material breach of contract, entitling the innocent party to rescind. There is no special rule requiring remittal to the valuer for a fresh valuation. The sheriff's decision to sustain the respondent's plea and dismiss the appellants' minute was correct in law.

Citation
[2015] ScotSC 40
Parties
Respondent: David Maguire; Appellants: 5 pm Ltd & 6 Others; Appellant: Charles Shaw; Appellant: Ronald Whitelaw Somerville
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
01 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Sheriff's Interlocutor
Outcome
Appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutor adhered to; minute dismissed.
Legal Topics
Expert Determination, Material Breach, Valuation Contracts, Rescission of Contract, Remedies for Breach
Contract Law Civil Procedure Expert Determination Material Breach Valuation Contracts Rescission of Contract Remedies for Breach

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

Parties

David Maguire

Respondent

5 pm Ltd & 6 Others

Appellants

Charles Shaw

Appellant

Ronald Whitelaw Somerville

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Sheriff's Interlocutor

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a material failure by an expert valuer to follow instructions constitutes a material breach of contract entitling rescission
  2. 2 Whether the correct remedy for an invalid valuation is rescission or remittal to the valuer for a fresh valuation
  3. 3 Whether the sheriff erred in law in sustaining the respondent's plea and dismissing the appellants' minute

Ratio Decidendi

A material failure by an expert valuer to follow instructions under a tripartite contract constitutes a material breach of contract, entitling the innocent party to rescind. There is no special rule requiring remittal to the valuer for a fresh valuation. The sheriff's decision to sustain the respondent's plea and dismiss the appellants' minute was correct in law.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutor adhered to; minute dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal refused
  • Sheriff's interlocutor of 31 July 2014 adhered to