Shankland & Co. v. John Robinson & Co. [1919] ScotLR 9 (18 July 1919)

Shankland & Co. v. John Robinson & Co. [1919] ScotLR 9 (18 July 1919)

The defenders were entitled to rescind the contract because the pursuers, having made prior representations that there would be no Government interference, failed to disclose material changes in circumstances known to them before the sale. This non-disclosure induced essential error in the defenders' minds, as they would not have contracted had they known the true position. The pursuers' honest belief did not excuse their legal duty to inform the defenders of the material facts.

Citation
[1919] ScotLR 9
Parties
Pursuer: Shankland & Company; Defender: John Robinson & Company
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 July 1919
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary
Outcome
Defenders entitled to rescind the contract; pursuers' claim dismissed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary adhered to.
Legal Topics
Essential Error, Misrepresentation, Non Disclosure, Rescission of Contract, Sale of Goods
Contract Law Essential Error Misrepresentation Non Disclosure Rescission of Contract Sale of Goods

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

Parties

Shankland & Company

Pursuer

John Robinson & Company

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders were entitled to rescind the contract of sale due to essential error induced by the pursuers' representations and subsequent non-disclosure of material facts.
  2. 2 Whether the pursuers' failure to inform the defenders of the change in circumstances regarding potential Government intervention constituted a legal ground for rescission.

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders were entitled to rescind the contract because the pursuers, having made prior representations that there would be no Government interference, failed to disclose material changes in circumstances known to them before the sale. This non-disclosure induced essential error in the defenders' minds, as they would not have contracted had they known the true position. The pursuers' honest belief did not excuse their legal duty to inform the defenders of the material facts.

Court Disposition

Defenders entitled to rescind the contract; pursuers' claim dismissed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary adhered to.

Orders

  • Assoilzie (absolve) the defenders from the conclusions of the summons.
  • Refuse the reclaiming note of the pursuers.