A. B. Abrahams, Ltd v. Campbell [1910] ScotLR 293 (23 December 1910)

A. B. Abrahams, Ltd v. Campbell [1910] ScotLR 293 (23 December 1910)

The contract was for advertising on cars running in Dumbarton as operated by the original company. The takeover and substantial extension of the tramway system by a new company fundamentally altered the subject-matter, frustrating the contract. The pursuers could not demand payment under the contract but were entitled to reasonable compensation for advertising actually provided (quantum meruit), as the defender acquiesced to this approach.

Citation
[1910] ScotLR 293
Parties
Pursuer/appellant: A. B. Abrahams, Limited; Defender/respondent: William Campbell junior
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
23 December 1910
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session, Inner House, First Division
Outcome
appeal refused; interlocutor of Sheriff affirmed
Legal Topics
Frustration of Contract, Performance, Termination, Quantum Meruit, Assignment of Contract
Contract Law Frustration of Contract Performance Termination Quantum Meruit Assignment of Contract

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

Parties

A. B. Abrahams, Limited

Pursuer/appellant

William Campbell junior

Defender/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session, Inner House, First Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuers were entitled to payment under the contract after the takeover and extension of the tramway system.
  2. 2 Whether the change in the tramway company and system constituted frustration or termination of the contract.
  3. 3 Whether the pursuers were entitled to compensation on a quantum meruit basis.

Ratio Decidendi

The contract was for advertising on cars running in Dumbarton as operated by the original company. The takeover and substantial extension of the tramway system by a new company fundamentally altered the subject-matter, frustrating the contract. The pursuers could not demand payment under the contract but were entitled to reasonable compensation for advertising actually provided (quantum meruit), as the defender acquiesced to this approach.

Court Disposition

appeal refused; interlocutor of Sheriff affirmed

Orders

  • Pursuers not entitled to payment under the contract.
  • Defender to pay £18 to pursuers as quantum meruit for advertising supplied.