Howgate Shopping Centre Ltd v Pinwise Ltd [2001] ScotCS 217 (5 September 2001)

It cannot be determined as a matter of relevancy that the pursuers' construction of the missives is unsound; whether HBJ acted as agents for the second defenders and whether the qualified acceptance was given on their behalf can only be resolved after proof. Background circumstances are relevant to the construction of the missives.

Citation: [2001] ScotCS 217
Parties: Pursuer: The Howgate Shopping Centre Limited; First Defender: GLS 164 Limited; Second Defender: Pinwise Limited
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judgment Date: 05 September 2001
Procedural Posture: Commercial Action / Debate on Relevancy; Interlocutory Decision
Outcome: Proof before answer allowed
Legal Topics: Guarantee Obligations, Lease Agreements, Agency, Formalities of Execution

Contract Law Property Law Guarantee Obligations Lease Agreements Agency Formalities of Execution

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2

Parties

The Howgate Shopping Centre Limited

Pursuer

GLS 164 Limited

First Defender

Pinwise Limited

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action / Debate on Relevancy; Interlocutory Decision

Legal Issues

1 Whether Pinwise Limited is bound as guarantor under the lease missives
2 Whether the missives constitute a tripartite contract binding the second defenders
3 Whether the Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995 is satisfied

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Proof before answer allowed

Orders

Proof before answer on the whole averments in the summons and defences as adjusted and amended
Both parties' preliminary pleas to stand