Alexander Munro & Co. v. A. Bennet & Son [1910] ScotLR 287 (23 December 1910)

Alexander Munro & Co. v. A. Bennet & Son [1910] ScotLR 287 (23 December 1910)

The buyer's rejection of the pump was timeous because the delay was caused by the seller's misrepresentations and assurances that the pump conformed to contract; the buyer was entitled to rely on the seller's skill. The expenses incurred by the buyer in the unsuccessful action against the sub-vendee flowed directly from the seller's breach and are recoverable as damages.

Citation
[1910] ScotLR 287
Parties
Appellant and Cross Claimant (defender in Original Action, Pursuer in Cross Action): Alexander Munro & Company; Respondent and Claimant (pursuer in Original Action, Defender in Cross Action): A. Bennet & Son
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
23 December 1910
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (conjoined Actions for Price and for Damages) / Appeal From Sheriff to Court of Session Inner House, First Division
Outcome
Appeal sustained; interlocutor of Sheriff recalled; interlocutor of Sheriff-Substitute affirmed; judgment for Munro & Company; Bennet & Son's claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Sale of Goods, Breach of Contract, Rejection of Goods, Measure of Damages, Timeous Rejection, Misrepresentation
Contract Law Commercial Law Sale of Goods Breach of Contract Rejection of Goods Measure of Damages Timeous Rejection Misrepresentation

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexander Munro & Company

Appellant and Cross Claimant (defender in Original Action, Pursuer in Cross Action)

A. Bennet & Son

Respondent and Claimant (pursuer in Original Action, Defender in Cross Action)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (conjoined Actions for Price and for Damages) / Appeal From Sheriff to Court of Session Inner House, First Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the buyer's rejection of the pump was timeous under the Sale of Goods Act 1893
  2. 2 Whether the expenses incurred by the buyer in an action against a sub-vendee (Lismore Council) are recoverable as damages for breach of contract

Ratio Decidendi

The buyer's rejection of the pump was timeous because the delay was caused by the seller's misrepresentations and assurances that the pump conformed to contract; the buyer was entitled to rely on the seller's skill. The expenses incurred by the buyer in the unsuccessful action against the sub-vendee flowed directly from the seller's breach and are recoverable as damages.

Court Disposition

Appeal sustained; interlocutor of Sheriff recalled; interlocutor of Sheriff-Substitute affirmed; judgment for Munro & Company; Bennet & Son's claim dismissed.

Orders

  • Assoilzie (absolve) Munro & Company from the conclusions of the action for price by Bennet & Son.
  • Decern (order) against Bennet & Son for payment of £144, 12s. 9d. to Munro & Company as damages for breach of contract.