Brydon & Anor (t/a Peterson's Crane Hire) v FE Beaumont Ltd [2004] ScotCS 265 (16 December 2004)

Brydon & Anor (t/a Peterson's Crane Hire) v FE Beaumont Ltd [2004] ScotCS 265 (16 December 2004)

The pursuer failed to aver a relevant custom of trade that would imply an indemnity term into the contract, either as agent or principal. The documentation and pleadings did not support an agency relationship or authority to accept the Port's standard terms on behalf of the defenders. The existence of standard terms and their continued use indicated no universal custom. The action was therefore irrelevant and dismissed.

Citation
[2004] ScotCS 265
Parties
Pursuer: N. Brydon, R. Peterson, t/a Peterson's Crane Hire; Defender: F. E. Beaumont Ltd
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action / Debate on Preliminary Plea
Outcome
action dismissed
Legal Topics
Custom of Trade, Implied Terms, Agency Relationship, Indemnity, Incorporation of Standard Terms
Contract Law Agency Law Commercial Law Custom of Trade Implied Terms Agency Relationship Indemnity Incorporation of Standard 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 3 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

N. Brydon, R. Peterson, t/a Peterson's Crane Hire

Pursuer

F. E. Beaumont Ltd

Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action / Debate on Preliminary Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a custom of trade implied a term into the contract requiring indemnity for liability incurred under a third-party contract
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer acted as agent for the defenders or as principal
  3. 3 Whether the Port's standard conditions were incorporated into the contract by custom of trade

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to aver a relevant custom of trade that would imply an indemnity term into the contract, either as agent or principal. The documentation and pleadings did not support an agency relationship or authority to accept the Port's standard terms on behalf of the defenders. The existence of standard terms and their continued use indicated no universal custom. The action was therefore irrelevant and dismissed.

Court Disposition

action dismissed

Orders

  • sustain the defenders' first plea-in-law
  • dismiss the action