Smith v. Reekie and Others [1920] ScotLR 174 (07 January 1920)

Smith v. Reekie and Others [1920] ScotLR 174 (07 January 1920)

The contract, though innominate, was not unusual, anomalous, or peculiar, and thus proof by parole was admissible. The pursuer's averments were relevant and, if established, entitled him to recover the bonus payment.

Citation
[1920] ScotLR 174
Parties
Pursuer: David Smith (Mackay), fisherman, St Monance; Defenders: William Reekie (Smith) and others, owners of the steam drifter 'Janet Reekie'
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
07 January 1920
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Sheriff Court Interlocutor
Outcome
Sheriff-Substitute's interlocutor recalled; case remitted for proof prout de jure.
Legal Topics
Innominate Contract, Proof of Contract, Bonus Payment, Service Agreement, Parole Evidence
Contract Law Innominate Contract Proof of Contract Bonus Payment Service Agreement Parole Evidence

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Smith (Mackay), fisherman, St Monance

Pursuer

William Reekie (Smith) and others, owners of the steam drifter 'Janet Reekie'

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Sheriff Court Interlocutor

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract between pursuer and defenders was innominate and if so, whether it was unusual or anomalous
  2. 2 Whether proof of the contract could be admitted by parole or restricted to writ or oath
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer was entitled to payment of bonus for service rendered

Ratio Decidendi

The contract, though innominate, was not unusual, anomalous, or peculiar, and thus proof by parole was admissible. The pursuer's averments were relevant and, if established, entitled him to recover the bonus payment.

Court Disposition

Sheriff-Substitute's interlocutor recalled; case remitted for proof prout de jure.

Orders

  • Allow proof prout de jure before the Sheriff-Substitute