Wade v. Waldon, et e contra [1909] ScotLR 359 (03 February 1909)

Wade v. Waldon, et e contra [1909] ScotLR 359 (03 February 1909)

Rule 6 was not a condition-precedent but an incidental stipulation; breach did not entitle Waldon to rescind the contract. Waldon's refusal to perform was unjustified and constituted breach. Damages must be ascertained for Wade; cross actions by Waldon and Pavilion Theatre are dismissed as they are based on breach of the main agreement, not the incidental stipulation.

Citation
[1909] ScotLR 359
Parties
Pursuer/respondent: George Edward Wade (George Robey); Defender/reclaimer: Richard Waldon; Counter Claimant: Pavilion Theatre (Glasgow), Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
03 February 1909
Procedural Posture
Contract Dispute / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) and Final Judgment
Outcome
Court adhered to Lord Ordinary's judgment; Wade's action sustained and proof allowed on damages; cross actions dismissed with expenses.
Legal Topics
Conditions Precedent, Breach of Contract, Interpretation of Contractual Stipulations, Damages
Contract Law Conditions Precedent Breach of Contract Interpretation of Contractual Stipulations Damages

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Edward Wade (George Robey)

Pursuer/respondent

Richard Waldon

Defender/reclaimer

Pavilion Theatre (Glasgow), Limited

Counter Claimant

Procedural Posture

Contract Dispute / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) and Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether rule 6 was a condition-precedent entitling rescission or an incidental stipulation only
  2. 2 Whether breach of rule 6 justified Waldon's refusal to perform
  3. 3 Whether cross actions for damages by Waldon and Pavilion Theatre were tenable

Ratio Decidendi

Rule 6 was not a condition-precedent but an incidental stipulation; breach did not entitle Waldon to rescind the contract. Waldon's refusal to perform was unjustified and constituted breach. Damages must be ascertained for Wade; cross actions by Waldon and Pavilion Theatre are dismissed as they are based on breach of the main agreement, not the incidental stipulation.

Court Disposition

Court adhered to Lord Ordinary's judgment; Wade's action sustained and proof allowed on damages; cross actions dismissed with expenses.

Orders

  • Proof limited to damages allowed for Wade
  • Cross actions by Waldon and Pavilion Theatre dismissed with expenses