GRANT MURPHY v. KELLY MADDEN [2000] ScotSC 5 (29th March, 2000)

GRANT MURPHY v. KELLY MADDEN [2000] ScotSC 5 (29th March, 2000)

The hire agreement did not fall within the exemption of the Consumer Credit (Exempt Agreements) Order 1989 because payment was not required within the 12 month period, but only after its expiry. The contra proferentem rule did not apply as the defender was not a party to the contract. The pursuer cannot recover hire charges from the defender as the agreement is unenforceable under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

Citation
[2000] ScotSC 5
Parties
Pursuer/appellant: Grant Murphy; Defender/respondent: Kelly Madden
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeal refused
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Contract Terms, Consumer Credit Agreement Enforceability, Damages for Negligence, Contra Proferentem Rule
Contract Law Consumer Credit Law Tort Law Interpretation of Contract Terms Consumer Credit Agreement Enforceability Damages for Negligence Contra Proferentem Rule

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

Parties

Grant Murphy

Pursuer/appellant

Kelly Madden

Defender/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the hire agreement falls within the exemption under the Consumer Credit (Exempt Agreements) Order 1989
  2. 2 Interpretation of 'on the expiry of 12 months' in the contract
  3. 3 Application of contra proferentem rule

Ratio Decidendi

The hire agreement did not fall within the exemption of the Consumer Credit (Exempt Agreements) Order 1989 because payment was not required within the 12 month period, but only after its expiry. The contra proferentem rule did not apply as the defender was not a party to the contract. The pursuer cannot recover hire charges from the defender as the agreement is unenforceable under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

Court Disposition

appeal refused

Orders

  • Appeal refused and interlocutors adhered to.
  • Pursuer/appellant found liable for expenses of the appeal.