BAIN AND PAULINE BAIN AGAINST KARL MARTIN [2018] ScotCS CSOH_83 (09 August 2018)

BAIN AND PAULINE BAIN AGAINST KARL MARTIN [2018] ScotCS CSOH_83 (09 August 2018)

The pursuers failed to satisfy the court on the balance of probabilities that the contract was with Karl Martin as an individual. The evidence indicated the contract was with the limited company, given the business structure, public promotion, and correspondence referencing the company.

Citation
[2018] ScotCS CSOH_83
Parties
Pursuer: Mark Bain; Pursuer: Pauline Bain; Defender: Karl Martin
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
09 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil / Preliminary Proof
Outcome
pursuers’ case fails
Legal Topics
Formation of Contract, Party Identification, Breach of Contract, Reparation
Contract Law Formation of Contract Party Identification Breach of Contract Reparation

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Bain

Pursuer

Pauline Bain

Pursuer

Karl Martin

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Preliminary Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the contract for construction of an extension to the pursuers’ home entered into with Karl Martin as an individual or with K&S Building Services (Scotland) Limited?
  2. 2 Did the pursuers know they were contracting with the company rather than the individual?

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers failed to satisfy the court on the balance of probabilities that the contract was with Karl Martin as an individual. The evidence indicated the contract was with the limited company, given the business structure, public promotion, and correspondence referencing the company.

Court Disposition

pursuers’ case fails

Orders

  • All questions of expenses reserved
  • Case to be put out By Order to discuss further procedure