Brady v. Bibby Factors Scotland Ltd [2005] ScotCS CSIH_38 (18 May 2005)

Brady v. Bibby Factors Scotland Ltd [2005] ScotCS CSIH_38 (18 May 2005)

The guarantee, properly construed, covers only sums due by the company under the Factoring Agreement and not all sums owed by the company on any basis. However, the sums claimed by the pursuers are in fact due under the Factoring Agreement, so the defender is liable under the guarantee regardless of the construction issue.

Citation
[2005] ScotCS CSIH_38
Parties
Pursuer/respondent: Bibby Factors Scotland Limited; Defender/appellant: Joseph Brady
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Appellate Decision
Outcome
appeal refused
Legal Topics
Guarantee Interpretation, Factoring Agreement, Surety Liability, Contract Construction
Contract Law Commercial Law Guarantee Interpretation Factoring Agreement Surety Liability Contract Construction

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

Bibby Factors Scotland Limited

Pursuer/respondent

Joseph Brady

Defender/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Appellate Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction of clause B2 of the guarantee and its scope
  2. 2 Whether the guarantee covers only sums due under the Factoring Agreement or all sums owed by the company
  3. 3 Whether advances exceeding 70% of purchase price are covered by the guarantee

Ratio Decidendi

The guarantee, properly construed, covers only sums due by the company under the Factoring Agreement and not all sums owed by the company on any basis. However, the sums claimed by the pursuers are in fact due under the Factoring Agreement, so the defender is liable under the guarantee regardless of the construction issue.

Court Disposition

appeal refused

Orders

  • Sheriff's interlocutor of 29 May 2003 affirmed
  • Case continued for hearing on expenses