D. M'Master & Co. v. Cox, M'Euen & Co. [1920] ScotLR 504 (25 May 1920)

D. M'Master & Co. v. Cox, M'Euen & Co. [1920] ScotLR 504 (25 May 1920)

The contract gave the buyers freedom to dispose of the goods in either the home or foreign market. The Jute (Export) Order 1917 and refusal of permit rendered the exercise of this freedom impossible, which was a fundamental condition of the contract. The supervening legislation frustrated the contract, releasing the buyers from their obligations. The Order applied to contracts made before its date, and neither party was in breach; the defenders were entitled to be assoilzied.

Citation
[1920] ScotLR 504
Parties
Pursuer: D. M'Master & Company; Defender: Cox, M'Euen & Company
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
25 May 1920
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion)
Outcome
defenders assoilzied (action dismissed)
Legal Topics
Sale of Goods, Impossibility of Performance, Supervening Illegality, Frustration of Contract, Statutory Interpretation
Contract Law Commercial Law Sale of Goods Impossibility of Performance Supervening Illegality Frustration of Contract Statutory Interpretation

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D. M'Master & Company

Pursuer

Cox, M'Euen & Company

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether supervening legislation (Jute (Export) Order 1917) rendered performance of the contract impossible and released the buyers from their obligations
  2. 2 Whether the contract contained an implied condition allowing buyers freedom to dispose of goods in home or foreign market
  3. 3 Whether the retrospective application of the Jute (Export) Order 1917 affected contracts made before its date

Ratio Decidendi

The contract gave the buyers freedom to dispose of the goods in either the home or foreign market. The Jute (Export) Order 1917 and refusal of permit rendered the exercise of this freedom impossible, which was a fundamental condition of the contract. The supervening legislation frustrated the contract, releasing the buyers from their obligations. The Order applied to contracts made before its date, and neither party was in breach; the defenders were entitled to be assoilzied.

Court Disposition

defenders assoilzied (action dismissed)

Orders

  • The interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary recalled.
  • Defenders assoilzied from the conclusions of the action.