Morgan Utilities Ltd v. Scottish Water Solutions Ltd [2011] ScotCS CSOH_112 (28 June 2011)

Morgan Utilities Ltd v. Scottish Water Solutions Ltd [2011] ScotCS CSOH_112 (28 June 2011)

The parties did not intend to reach a binding agreement at the September 2003 meeting, Mr Sloss did not have apparent authority to contract, and there was no agreement on essential terms such as the start date; therefore, no binding contract was formed between MUL and SWS for the Lothian and Borders works.

Citation
[2011] ScotCS CSOH_112
Parties
Pursuer: Morgan Utilities Ltd (MUL); Defender: Scottish Water Solutions (SWS); Third Party: Scottish Water (SW)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / Final Judgment
Outcome
action dismissed
Legal Topics
Formation of Contract, Apparent Authority, Sufficiency of Agreement, Legacy Contracts, Novation
Contract Law Commercial Law Formation of Contract Apparent Authority Sufficiency of Agreement Legacy Contracts 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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Morgan Utilities Ltd (MUL)

Pursuer

Scottish Water Solutions (SWS)

Defender

Scottish Water (SW)

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was an intention to contract between MUL and SWS on 3 or 4 September 2003
  2. 2 Whether Mr Sloss had apparent authority to contract on behalf of SWS
  3. 3 Whether there was sufficient agreement to create a binding contract

Ratio Decidendi

The parties did not intend to reach a binding agreement at the September 2003 meeting, Mr Sloss did not have apparent authority to contract, and there was no agreement on essential terms such as the start date; therefore, no binding contract was formed between MUL and SWS for the Lothian and Borders works.

Court Disposition

action dismissed

Orders

  • repel the first plea in law for the pursuer
  • sustain the fourth plea in law for the defender