Krupp and Another v. John Menzies, Ltd [1907] ScotLR 657 (16 May 1907)

Krupp and Another v. John Menzies, Ltd [1907] ScotLR 657 (16 May 1907)

Proof before answer should be allowed of the defenders' averments that the written contract contains a clerical or arithmetical error and does not reflect the true agreement of the parties, as parole evidence may be admissible to correct such an error and prevent injustice.

Citation
[1907] ScotLR 657
Parties
Pursuers (applicants): Mrs Jessie Andrews or Krupp and William Krupp; Defender (respondent): John Menzies, Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 May 1907
Procedural Posture
Civil (contract Dispute) / Interlocutory Appeal (reclaiming Motion) on Admissibility of Proof Before Answer
Outcome
Lord Ordinary's interlocutor recalled quoad the second conclusion; proof before answer allowed of parties' respective averments, defenders to lead.
Legal Topics
Rectification of Written Contracts, Admissibility of Parole Evidence, Clerical Error, Specific Performance
Contract Law Evidence Law Rectification of Written Contracts Admissibility of Parole Evidence Clerical Error Specific Performance

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 2 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Jessie Andrews or Krupp and William Krupp

Pursuers (applicants)

John Menzies, Limited

Defender (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil (contract Dispute) / Interlocutory Appeal (reclaiming Motion) on Admissibility of Proof Before Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether parole evidence is admissible to prove a clerical or arithmetical error in a written contract where the contract is clear and unambiguous on its face.
  2. 2 Whether the defenders are entitled to proof before answer of their averments that the written contract does not reflect the true agreement due to a clerical error.

Ratio Decidendi

Proof before answer should be allowed of the defenders' averments that the written contract contains a clerical or arithmetical error and does not reflect the true agreement of the parties, as parole evidence may be admissible to correct such an error and prevent injustice.

Court Disposition

Lord Ordinary's interlocutor recalled quoad the second conclusion; proof before answer allowed of parties' respective averments, defenders to lead.

Orders

  • Proof before answer allowed on the defenders' averments regarding clerical error in the contract.
  • Case remitted to the Lord Ordinary for further procedure.