Fraser (AP) v Professional Golfers' Association Ltd [2008] ScotCS CSIH_53 (11 September 2008)

Fraser (AP) v Professional Golfers' Association Ltd [2008] ScotCS CSIH_53 (11 September 2008)

The appellant failed to prove, on the evidence and findings of fact, that a fair and reasonable examiner would have awarded him a passing mark in the club repair examination. The failures identified by the Lord Ordinary—failure to drill to correct depth, improper handling of lead, and lack of dam protection—were significant and justified the fail. The appellant did not establish that the marking was unreasonable or that he would have passed if assessed differently. Accordingly, there was no breach of contract established.

Citation
[2008] ScotCS CSIH_53
Parties
Pursuer & Appellant: Colin Fraser; Defenders & Respondents: The Professional Golfers' Association Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
11 September 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) From Lord Ordinary's Decision
Outcome
appeal refused
Legal Topics
Implied Terms, Breach of Contract, Professional Examinations, Fair Assessment, Damages
Contract Law Professional Regulation Implied Terms Breach of Contract Professional Examinations Fair Assessment Damages

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Colin Fraser

Pursuer & Appellant

The Professional Golfers' Association Limited

Defenders & Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) From Lord Ordinary's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents breached an implied term to assess the appellant fairly and reasonably in the club repair examination according to the standards of a careful and competent professional golf club repairer.
  2. 2 Whether, had the assessment been fair and reasonable, the appellant would have passed the examination and been admitted to membership.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to prove, on the evidence and findings of fact, that a fair and reasonable examiner would have awarded him a passing mark in the club repair examination. The failures identified by the Lord Ordinary—failure to drill to correct depth, improper handling of lead, and lack of dam protection—were significant and justified the fail. The appellant did not establish that the marking was unreasonable or that he would have passed if assessed differently. Accordingly, there was no breach of contract established.

Court Disposition

appeal refused

Orders

  • Reclaiming motion refused; Lord Ordinary's decision assoilzieing (absolving) the respondents affirmed.