Thomas Stevenson & Sons v. Robert Maule & Son [1920] ScotLR 284 (03 March 1920)

Thomas Stevenson & Sons v. Robert Maule & Son [1920] ScotLR 284 (03 March 1920)

The contract was for ordinary labour, not requiring personal skill or qualifications, and there was no evidence of special reliance on the defenders' personal performance. Therefore, the defenders were entitled to subcontract the beating of the carpet. Having exercised reasonable care in selecting a competent subcontractor and absent any negligence, the defenders were not liable for the accidental destruction of the carpet by fire.

Citation
[1920] ScotLR 284
Parties
Pursuer: Thomas Stevenson & Sons; Defender: Robert Maule & Son
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
03 March 1920
Procedural Posture
Civil / Inner House Appeal (reclaiming Note) From Lord Ordinary's Decision
Outcome
Appeal refused; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary adhered to; defenders assoilzied (absolved) from the conclusions of the action.
Legal Topics
Hire of Services, Subcontracting, Delectus Personae, Custody of Goods, Liability for Subcontractors, Accidental Loss
Contract Law Commercial Law Hire of Services Subcontracting Delectus Personae Custody of Goods Liability for Subcontractors Accidental Loss

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Stevenson & Sons

Pursuer

Robert Maule & Son

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Inner House Appeal (reclaiming Note) From Lord Ordinary's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders breached contract by subcontracting the beating of the carpet without the pursuers' consent
  2. 2 Whether the contract was of such a nature as to require personal performance by the defenders (delectus personae)
  3. 3 Whether the defenders were liable for the accidental destruction of the carpet by fire while in the custody of the subcontractor

Ratio Decidendi

The contract was for ordinary labour, not requiring personal skill or qualifications, and there was no evidence of special reliance on the defenders' personal performance. Therefore, the defenders were entitled to subcontract the beating of the carpet. Having exercised reasonable care in selecting a competent subcontractor and absent any negligence, the defenders were not liable for the accidental destruction of the carpet by fire.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary adhered to; defenders assoilzied (absolved) from the conclusions of the action.

Orders

  • Pursuers' pleas repelled
  • Defenders assoilzied from the conclusions of the action