Lupton & Co. v. Schulze and Co. [1900] ScotLR 37_839 (29 June 1900)

Lupton & Co. v. Schulze and Co. [1900] ScotLR 37_839 (29 June 1900)

A buyer who rejects goods as not conforming to contract but refuses to return them to the seller, instead retaining them to pressure the seller or as security, is not entitled to claim damages in extinction or diminution of the price under the Sale of Goods Act 1893 and is liable for the full contract price.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1900] ScotLR 37_839
Parties
Pursuer/respondent: William Lupton & Company; Defender/appellant: William Schulze & Company
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
29 June 1900
Procedural Posture
Civil (contract/sale of Goods) / Appeal From Sheriff to Court of Session Inner House, Second Division
Outcome
appeal dismissed; interlocutor of Sheriff affirmed
Legal Topics
Sale of Goods, Breach of Contract, Rejection of Goods, Damages, Retention of Goods, Election of Remedies
Contract Law Commercial Law Sale of Goods Breach of Contract Rejection of Goods Damages Retention of Goods Election of Remedies

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Lupton & Company

Pursuer/respondent

William Schulze & Company

Defender/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil (contract/sale of Goods) / Appeal From Sheriff to Court of Session Inner House, Second Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a buyer who rejects goods as disconform to contract but refuses to return them can claim damages in extinction or diminution of the price under the Sale of Goods Act 1893
  2. 2 Whether retention of rejected goods bars the buyer from counterclaiming for damages

Ratio Decidendi

A buyer who rejects goods as not conforming to contract but refuses to return them to the seller, instead retaining them to pressure the seller or as security, is not entitled to claim damages in extinction or diminution of the price under the Sale of Goods Act 1893 and is liable for the full contract price.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; interlocutor of Sheriff affirmed

Orders

  • Defenders (Schulze & Company) liable for the full contract price of the goods retained
  • Counterclaim for damages by Schulze & Company repelled