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.
There is a controversy, which will be afterwards alluded to, as to what exactly happened between Pollock and the respondent after the letter was written out, but on 18th December the appellants' firm wrote the following letter:—
“Dear Sir,—We thank you very much for your esteemed and valued order dated 11th inst., which you handed to our Mr W. C. Pollock, while he was in Stornoway, for one twin screw set of model ‘K’ Clyde 35/40 H.P. marine paraffin motors for your fishing boat the ‘Queen of the North.’ We beg to hand you herewith, as arranged, our quotation and specification for these engines which is the same as has been sent to Messrs Bain, Morrison, & Co., Stornoway, for their fishing boat the ‘Tubal Cain.’
“We beg to advise you that the crankshafts for your motors have now been ordered, and application has been made to the Fishery Board for Scotland for Class ‘A’ certificate to enable the work to be completed as fast as possible. You very kindly promised our Mr Pollock to send us on your cheque for £100 by the end of the week, and we have no doubt this matter has escaped your notice.
“Thanking you very much for this order, and assuring you at all times of our very best and most prompt attention.—Yours faithfully, for W. & S. POLLOCK & COMPANY, A. M'PHERSON.”
On 22nd December the appellants renewed their request for the immediate payment of the £100. This was followed on the 24th by a letter from the respondent to the appellants:—
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.