Rutherford v Miln [1940] ScotCS CSIH_6 (13 December 1940)

Rutherford v Miln [1940] ScotCS CSIH_6 (13 December 1940)

The exclusion of warranty clause was incorporated into the contract as the pursuer knew the sale was on the seller's usual terms. The clause was sufficiently broad to exclude liability for seeds not matching the description. Therefore, the defenders were not liable for the failure of the seeds to produce the crop described, and the pursuers' claim for damages failed.

Citation
[1940] ScotCS CSIH_6
Parties
Pursuer: Rutherford & Son; Defender: Miln & Co
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
13 December 1940
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) Before the Second Division, Court of Session
Outcome
appeal dismissed; judgment for defenders affirmed
Legal Topics
Sale of Goods, Exclusion of Implied Terms, Incorporation of Terms, Damages for Breach of Contract, Interpretation of Exclusion Clauses
Contract Law Commercial Law Sale of Goods Exclusion of Implied Terms Incorporation of Terms Damages for Breach of Contract Interpretation of Exclusion Clauses

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rutherford & Son

Pursuer

Miln & Co

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) Before the Second Division, Court of Session

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the exclusion of warranty clause in the invoice formed part of the contract and excluded liability for seeds not matching the description.
  2. 2 Whether the seeds supplied corresponded with the contractual description.
  3. 3 Whether the pursuers were entitled to damages for breach of contract.

Ratio Decidendi

The exclusion of warranty clause was incorporated into the contract as the pursuer knew the sale was on the seller's usual terms. The clause was sufficiently broad to exclude liability for seeds not matching the description. Therefore, the defenders were not liable for the failure of the seeds to produce the crop described, and the pursuers' claim for damages failed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; judgment for defenders affirmed

Orders

  • Defenders assoilzied from conclusions of the summons
  • Pursuers' claim for damages refused