Bank Of Scotland v Messrs Fuller Peiser [2001] ScotCS 261 (13 November 2001)

Bank Of Scotland v Messrs Fuller Peiser [2001] ScotCS 261 (13 November 2001)

The express disclaimer in the defenders' valuation report was clear and unambiguous, negating any assumption of responsibility to the pursuers. The disclaimer satisfied the reasonableness test under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. Consequently, no duty of care was owed by the defenders to the pursuers and the action fails for want of relevancy.

Citation
[2001] ScotCS 261
Parties
Pursuer: The Governor and Company of the Bank of Scotland; Defender: Messrs Fuller Peiser
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
13 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence / Debate on Relevancy, Motion for Dismissal
Outcome
action dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligent Misstatement, Duty of Care, Disclaimer of Liability, Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, Professional Negligence
Tort Contract Commercial Law Negligent Misstatement Duty of Care Disclaimer of Liability Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 Professional Negligence

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

Parties

The Governor and Company of the Bank of Scotland

Pursuer

Messrs Fuller Peiser

Defender

Procedural Posture

Professional Negligence / Debate on Relevancy, Motion for Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a duty of care was owed by the defenders to the pursuers in respect of the valuation report
  2. 2 Effectiveness of the disclaimer in the valuation report
  3. 3 Application of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 reasonableness test

Ratio Decidendi

The express disclaimer in the defenders' valuation report was clear and unambiguous, negating any assumption of responsibility to the pursuers. The disclaimer satisfied the reasonableness test under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. Consequently, no duty of care was owed by the defenders to the pursuers and the action fails for want of relevancy.

Court Disposition

action dismissed

Orders

  • decree of dismissal granted
  • defenders' plea to relevancy upheld