ELAINE GIBSON v. LEANNE DONNA GIBSON & PETER BRIAN GAVRYLUK [2010] ScotSC 132 (04 August 2010)

ELAINE GIBSON v. LEANNE DONNA GIBSON & PETER BRIAN GAVRYLUK [2010] ScotSC 132 (04 August 2010)

The alleged obligation to pay £23,000 on resale was part of the contract for the sale of land and, not being in writing, was unenforceable under the Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995. The missives constituted the full contract. The defenders' enrichment was justified by their contractual rights, so the claim for unjustified enrichment also failed.

Citation
[2010] ScotSC 132
Parties
Pursuer and Appellant: Elaine Gibson; Defender and Respondent: Leanne Donna Gibson; Defender and Respondent: Peter Brian Gavryluk
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
04 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff's Decision
Outcome
appeal refused; sheriff's decision adhered to with minor correction
Legal Topics
Requirements of Writing, Missives of Sale, Unjustified Enrichment, Expenses, Formal Validity of Land Contracts
Contract Law Property Law Civil Procedure Requirements of Writing Missives of Sale Unjustified Enrichment Expenses Formal Validity of Land Contracts

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

Parties

Elaine Gibson

Pursuer and Appellant

Leanne Donna Gibson

Defender and Respondent

Peter Brian Gavryluk

Defender and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an oral or informal agreement for payment of £23,000 on resale of property is enforceable under the Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995
  2. 2 Whether the defenders were unjustifiably enriched by purchasing property at undervalue and reselling it without accounting to the pursuer

Ratio Decidendi

The alleged obligation to pay £23,000 on resale was part of the contract for the sale of land and, not being in writing, was unenforceable under the Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995. The missives constituted the full contract. The defenders' enrichment was justified by their contractual rights, so the claim for unjustified enrichment also failed.

Court Disposition

appeal refused; sheriff's decision adhered to with minor correction

Orders

  • Pursuer and appellant found liable to defenders and respondents in expenses of the appeal; account to be taxed and reported by auditor of court
  • Cause remitted to sheriff to proceed as accords