Leary & Co. v. Briggs & Co. [1904] ScotLR 41_681 (28 June 1904)

Leary & Co. v. Briggs & Co. [1904] ScotLR 41_681 (28 June 1904)

The buyer, having contracted to accept delivery and pay for the goods notwithstanding disputes as to quality, cannot reject the goods for alleged lack of merchantable quality; such disputes must be resolved by arbitration as stipulated, and the arbitration clause is not inoperative at the time of delivery and payment.

Citation
[1904] ScotLR 41_681
Parties
Pursuer: Leary & Company; Defender: Briggs & Company
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 June 1904
Procedural Posture
Contract Dispute / Appeal From Sheriff to Inner House, First Division
Outcome
appeal allowed; interlocutor of Sheriff-Substitute restored
Legal Topics
Sale of Goods, Arbitration Clauses, Merchantable Quality, Right to Reject, Remedies for Breach of Contract
Contract Law Commercial Law Sale of Goods Arbitration Clauses Merchantable Quality Right to Reject Remedies for Breach of Contract

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

Leary & Company

Pursuer

Briggs & Company

Defender

Procedural Posture

Contract Dispute / Appeal From Sheriff to Inner House, First Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does an arbitration clause requiring delivery and payment preclude the buyer's right to reject goods for alleged lack of merchantable quality?
  2. 2 Is the arbitration clause inoperative if the named arbiters (brokers) have allegedly identified themselves with one party?

Ratio Decidendi

The buyer, having contracted to accept delivery and pay for the goods notwithstanding disputes as to quality, cannot reject the goods for alleged lack of merchantable quality; such disputes must be resolved by arbitration as stipulated, and the arbitration clause is not inoperative at the time of delivery and payment.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; interlocutor of Sheriff-Substitute restored

Orders

  • Recall the interlocutor of the Sheriff dated 16 March 1904.
  • Affirm the interlocutor of the Sheriff-Substitute dated 10 November 1903 and decern.