LOUISE RICHAL v. MICHAEL SEED & ANDREA SEED [2012] ScotSC 106 (20 November 2012)

LOUISE RICHAL v. MICHAEL SEED & ANDREA SEED [2012] ScotSC 106 (20 November 2012)

The Council's letter constituted a 'neighbour notification notice' within the meaning of the missives, as the clause was intended to cover any such notice issued under planning legislation. The warranty applied as at the date of the amended missives, since the effect of the parties' correspondence was to create a new date for the conclusion of the bargain, and thus the warranty was given as at that new date.

Citation
[2012] ScotSC 106
Parties
Respondent: Louise Richal; Appellant: Michael Seed; Appellant: Andrea Seed
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
20 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff's Judgment on Preliminary Plea
Outcome
Appeal refused
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Conveyancing, Interpretation of Missives, Planning Legislation, Warranties in Property Sale
Contract Law Property Law Breach of Contract Conveyancing Interpretation of Missives Planning Legislation Warranties in Property Sale

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Louise Richal

Respondent

Michael Seed

Appellant

Andrea Seed

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff's Judgment on Preliminary Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the letter from Aberdeenshire Council constituted a 'neighbour notification notice' under the missives
  2. 2 Whether the warranty in the missives applied as at the date of the amended missives or the original missives

Ratio Decidendi

The Council's letter constituted a 'neighbour notification notice' within the meaning of the missives, as the clause was intended to cover any such notice issued under planning legislation. The warranty applied as at the date of the amended missives, since the effect of the parties' correspondence was to create a new date for the conclusion of the bargain, and thus the warranty was given as at that new date.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused

Orders

  • Refuses the appeal
  • Adheres to the sheriff's interlocutor of 29 February 2012