Lord Advocate v Chung [1994] ScotCS CSIH_4 (08 July 1994)

Lord Advocate v Chung [1994] ScotCS CSIH_4 (08 July 1994)

The term 'personal representative' in the contract was purely descriptive and did not limit the defender's liability to a representative capacity. There was no ambiguity in the contract, and the defender was personally liable for the sum offered. No defence was disclosed in the pleadings, and the reclaiming motion was refused.

Citation
[1994] ScotCS CSIH_4
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: Lord Advocate; Defender and Reclaimer: Tat Nin Chung
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
08 July 1994
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Summary Decree
Outcome
reclaiming motion refused; summary decree affirmed
Legal Topics
Personal Liability Under Contract, Capacity of Personal Representative, Agency and Principal Relationship, Interpretation of Contractual Terms
Contract Law Tax Law Succession Law Personal Liability Under Contract Capacity of Personal Representative Agency and Principal Relationship Interpretation of Contractual Terms

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

Parties

Lord Advocate

Pursuer and Respondent

Tat Nin Chung

Defender and Reclaimer

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Summary Decree

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender incurred personal liability under a contract signed as 'personal representative' of a deceased.
  2. 2 Whether the use of 'personal representative' in the contract limited liability to a representative capacity or created personal liability.
  3. 3 Whether ambiguity in the contract justified application of the contra proferentem rule.

Ratio Decidendi

The term 'personal representative' in the contract was purely descriptive and did not limit the defender's liability to a representative capacity. There was no ambiguity in the contract, and the defender was personally liable for the sum offered. No defence was disclosed in the pleadings, and the reclaiming motion was refused.

Court Disposition

reclaiming motion refused; summary decree affirmed

Orders

  • No remit to Lord Ordinary; summary decree stands; defender personally liable for £20,000 as per contract