Stone v Macdonald [1979] ScotCS CSOH_5 (21 February 1979)

Stone v Macdonald [1979] ScotCS CSOH_5 (21 February 1979)

The pursuers validly exercised the option to purchase by giving written notice as required by the Minute of Agreement; no further probative writing or specified date of entry was necessary for a binding contract for the sale of heritage, and the defenders' arguments on these points were rejected.

Citation
[1979] ScotCS CSOH_5
Parties
Pursuer: Stone; Defender: Macdonald
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
21 February 1979
Procedural Posture
Civil / Opinion on Relevancy, No Factual Enquiry Required
Outcome
Decree granted in favour of pursuers for first three conclusions of the Summons; defenders' relevant pleas repelled; cause continued quoad ultra.
Legal Topics
Option to Purchase, Exercise of Option, Requirements for Sale of Heritage, Probative Writing, Date of Entry, Delay and Implied Terms
Property Law Contract Law Succession Law Option to Purchase Exercise of Option Requirements for Sale of Heritage Probative Writing Date of Entry +1 more

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stone

Pursuer

Macdonald

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Opinion on Relevancy, No Factual Enquiry Required

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuers validly exercised the option to purchase under the Minute of Agreement
  2. 2 Whether the exercise of the option required a probative writing
  3. 3 Whether the absence of a specified date of entry invalidated the contract for sale of heritage

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers validly exercised the option to purchase by giving written notice as required by the Minute of Agreement; no further probative writing or specified date of entry was necessary for a binding contract for the sale of heritage, and the defenders' arguments on these points were rejected.

Court Disposition

Decree granted in favour of pursuers for first three conclusions of the Summons; defenders' relevant pleas repelled; cause continued quoad ultra.

Orders

  • Sustain seventh plea-in-law for pursuers
  • Repel first, second and fourth pleas-in-law for defenders