Barry, Ostlere, & Shepherd, Ltd v. The Edinburgh Cork Importing Co. [1909] ScotLR 751 (05 June 1909)

Barry, Ostlere, & Shepherd, Ltd v. The Edinburgh Cork Importing Co. [1909] ScotLR 751 (05 June 1909)

The Court held that the evidence established a concluded contract of sale between the parties at the meeting on 29th January 1907, as evidenced by the written order and subsequent conduct. The pursuers were entitled to rely on the manager's apparent authority to bind the defenders, and there was nothing in the circumstances to require the pursuers to inquire further into his authority. The defenders' subsequent correspondence and failure to repudiate the contract supported the existence of a binding agreement.

Citation
[1909] ScotLR 751
Parties
Pursuer: Barry, Ostlere, & Shepherd, Limited; Defender: The Edinburgh Cork Importing Company
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
05 June 1909
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary
Outcome
appeal allowed; judgment for pursuers
Legal Topics
Sale of Goods, Agency, Formation of Contract, Authority of Agents, Proof of Contract
Contract Law Commercial Law Sale of Goods Agency Formation of Contract Authority of Agents Proof 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

Barry, Ostlere, & Shepherd, Limited

Pursuer

The Edinburgh Cork Importing Company

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a binding contract of sale was concluded between the parties on 29th January 1907
  2. 2 Whether the manager (Lawrie) had authority to bind the defenders to the contract
  3. 3 Whether the written 'order' was an offer or evidence of a concluded contract

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the evidence established a concluded contract of sale between the parties at the meeting on 29th January 1907, as evidenced by the written order and subsequent conduct. The pursuers were entitled to rely on the manager's apparent authority to bind the defenders, and there was nothing in the circumstances to require the pursuers to inquire further into his authority. The defenders' subsequent correspondence and failure to repudiate the contract supported the existence of a binding agreement.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; judgment for pursuers

Orders

  • Interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled
  • Pursuers found entitled to damages