Fortune v. Young [1917] ScotLR 20 (18 October 1917)

The defender is personally liable under the guarantee, which is valid despite not being addressed to anyone and being signed in the firm's name, as he intended it to be relied upon by the pursuer and it complies with statutory requirements.

Citation: [1917] ScotLR 20
Parties: Pursuer: George Robert Fortune; Defender: Robert Young
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judgment Date: 18 October 1917
Procedural Posture: Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion)
Outcome: appeal dismissed; judgment for pursuer affirmed
Legal Topics: Guarantee, Cautioner, Representation as to Credit, Mercantile Law Amendment (scotland) Act 1856, Signature Requirements

Contract Commercial Bankruptcy Guarantee Cautioner Representation as to Credit Mercantile Law Amendment (scotland) Act 1856 Signature Requirements

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6

Parties

George Robert Fortune

Pursuer

Robert Young

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion)

Legal Issues

1 Whether a letter guaranteeing financial standing, not addressed to anyone and signed in the firm's name, constitutes a valid guarantee under Scottish law
2 Whether the defender is personally liable under the guarantee despite signing in the firm's name
3 Whether the pursuer is entitled to recover losses based on the guarantee

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; judgment for pursuer affirmed

Orders

Court adhered to Lord Ordinary's interlocutor granting decree for the amount sued for