Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
"That the pursuer's heritable property had been invested in his trustee, ... at the time when the missives had been entered into by the third parties on 30 th January 1990, while his estate had been solvent. And assets which ought to have been realised under section 78 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1913, if the alleged sum of money of �10,000 had been needed to pay final dividend of 20 pence to creditors and finalise the sequestration in January or February 1990".
"The decision by the Lord Ordinary that there was consensus in the sale of subjects was argued and was known to the third parties of the defenders that consensus in idem can never be binding on either party as in Grant 1985 SC 251 and the Merrick Homes limited v Duff case had only succeeded by withholding authorities from their Lordships which might have thrown light upon the matters under debate was done to obtain a decision from their Lordships in the absence of material and information which a properly informed decision requires"
"That the pursuer had no defences to the action under the bankruptcy (Scotland) act 1913 and 1985 or under the companies act 1985, which were relevant to the cause, showing that some fracture which is essential to when liability is lacking, he would have been able to satisfy the court that in law he owed no duty of care to the defender and that he was in fat (sic) negligent, or that liability was excluded by a fair and reasonable exemption clause, he could not have known that the action would not have been defended".
"That the missives contract only had been achieved on an unintentional essential error being an error of expression, by one party known too (sic) and taken advantage off (sic) by the other party, put the other party in bad faith, and was wrong for which the law provided a remedy, of which the pursuer was prejudiced and denied that remedy".
It remains, of course, true that the value of the procedure would, on the other hand, be lost if the Court made such a meticulous examination of the averments as to leave or deny the solid ground of a case because of the absence of technical formalities of expression. That does not happen in Scotland ..."
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.