R & J Dempster Ltd v Motherwell Bridge and Engineering Co Ltd [1964] ScotCS CSIH_1 (03 July 1964)

R & J Dempster Ltd v Motherwell Bridge and Engineering Co Ltd [1964] ScotCS CSIH_1 (03 July 1964)

The letters exchanged in December 1956 constituted a binding contract obliging the defenders to place orders for 1000 tons of tankage in each of three years. The reference to prices being settled later related to individual orders, not the overall obligation, and was surplusage. The essential terms were sufficiently certain given the commercial context and prior dealings. The defenders breached the contract by failing to place orders.

Citation
[1964] ScotCS CSIH_1
Parties
Pursuer: R & J Dempster Ltd; Defender: Motherwell Bridge and Engineering Co Ltd
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
03 July 1964
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Formation of Contract, Certainty of Terms, Commercial Contracts, Breach of Contract, Damages
Contract Formation of Contract Certainty of Terms Commercial Contracts Breach of Contract 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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R & J Dempster Ltd

Pursuer

Motherwell Bridge and Engineering Co Ltd

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the letters of 18th and 21st December 1956 constituted a binding contract
  2. 2 Whether price is an essential term for contract formation
  3. 3 Whether the defenders breached the contract by failing to place orders

Ratio Decidendi

The letters exchanged in December 1956 constituted a binding contract obliging the defenders to place orders for 1000 tons of tankage in each of three years. The reference to prices being settled later related to individual orders, not the overall obligation, and was surplusage. The essential terms were sufficiently certain given the commercial context and prior dealings. The defenders breached the contract by failing to place orders.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Decree for the sum of £50,000 in favour of the pursuers
  • First two pleas in law for the pursuers sustained