William Lippe Architects Ltd v. Innes [2006] ScotCS CSOH_182A (30 November 2006)

William Lippe Architects Ltd v. Innes [2006] ScotCS CSOH_182A (30 November 2006)

The pursuers failed to prove that a concluded agreement was reached between the parties as to the basis and amount of remuneration for the architectural services. The evidence did not establish consensus in idem on the terms averred, and the pursuers did not sue for reasonable remuneration. Accordingly, the action must fail.

Citation
[2006] ScotCS CSOH_182A
Parties
Pursuer: William Lippe Architects Limited; Defender: James Innes
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
30 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action / Judgment After Proof Before Answer
Outcome
action dismissed; defender assoilzied
Legal Topics
Formation of Contract, Remuneration for Professional Services, Consensus in Idem, Implied Terms, Novation
Contract Law Commercial Law Formation of Contract Remuneration for Professional Services Consensus in Idem Implied Terms Novation

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

Parties

William Lippe Architects Limited

Pursuer

James Innes

Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action / Judgment After Proof Before Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a concluded agreement between the parties as to the basis and amount of remuneration for architectural services.
  2. 2 Whether the pursuers are entitled to payment of 3.8% of the sale price of the land or an alternative plot as claimed.
  3. 3 Whether any novation of liability to pay occurred in favour of Bancon Homes.

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers failed to prove that a concluded agreement was reached between the parties as to the basis and amount of remuneration for the architectural services. The evidence did not establish consensus in idem on the terms averred, and the pursuers did not sue for reasonable remuneration. Accordingly, the action must fail.

Court Disposition

action dismissed; defender assoilzied

Orders

  • Decree of absolvitor granted in favour of the defender.