Errol v Walker [1966] ScotCS CSIH_2 (11 March 1966)

Errol v Walker [1966] ScotCS CSIH_2 (11 March 1966)

Where a written offer to purchase heritage is followed by actings known to and permitted by the other party, such actings may constitute rei interventus and complete a binding contract, and proof of these actings may be led by parole evidence without restriction to writ or oath.

Citation
[1966] ScotCS CSIH_2
Parties
Pursuer: Errol; Defender: Walker
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
11 March 1966
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal Against Interlocutor Limiting Proof to Writ or Oath
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Rei Interventus, Proof of Informal Contract, Sale of Heritage, Mode of Proof, Implied Acceptance
Property Law Contract Law Evidence Law Rei Interventus Proof of Informal Contract Sale of Heritage Mode of Proof Implied Acceptance

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

Parties

Errol

Pursuer

Walker

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal Against Interlocutor Limiting Proof to Writ or Oath

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether rei interventus can complete a contract for the sale of heritage where no prior concluded contract exists
  2. 2 Whether proof of such a contract must be restricted to writ or oath or may be by parole evidence
  3. 3 Whether actings following a written offer can constitute acceptance and a binding contract

Ratio Decidendi

Where a written offer to purchase heritage is followed by actings known to and permitted by the other party, such actings may constitute rei interventus and complete a binding contract, and proof of these actings may be led by parole evidence without restriction to writ or oath.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Interlocutor restricting proof to writ or oath recalled
  • Proof of parties' averments allowed before answer, defender to lead in proof