Spiersbridge Property Developments Limited v Muir Construction Limited [electronic resource]
Spiersbridge Property Developments Limited v Muir Construction Limited [electronic resource]
- 2008
[2008] ScotCS CSOH 44, 14 March 2008. The case considers whether an employer who calls a performance bond is obliged to account to the contractor for any overpayment. The pursuer, Spiersbridge Property Ltd (Spiersbridge) entered into a building contract with Muir Construction Ltd (Muir). Muir gave Spiersbridge an on demand performance bond (the Bond) from the Royal Bank of Scotland (the Bank). On 14 November 2006, Spiersbridge requested the bank for a bond alleging various breaches of contract from Muir. The bank made the payment and claimed back to Muir the amount paid to Spiersbridge. Muir argued that there was no breach of contract on his part; that Spiersbridge had no proper basis to ask for that money and requested that the sum paid by him to the bank should be reimbursed to him by Spiersbridge. There was no provision in the bond or the Building contract under such circumstances. The Outer house had to decide whether the entitlement to repayment of excess arose under the Bond or the Building contract. Held: The Court decide that the repayment term should be implied in the Building Contract.
MOSVOLDS REDERI A/S V FOOD CORP OF INDIA
SPIERSBRIDGE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED V MUIR CONSTRUCTION LIMITED
AUSTRALASIAN CONFERENCE ASSOCIATION V MAINLINE CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)
SHIRLAW V SOUTHERN FOUNDRIES (1926) LTD
CARGILL INTERNATIONAL SA V BANGLADESH SUGAR AND FOOD INDUSTRIES CORPORATION
SEEPONG ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION CO LIMITED V FORMULA 1 ADMINISTRATION LIMITED
WOOD HALL LIMITED V THE PIPELINE AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER
Scotland--1999-
[2008] ScotCS CSOH 44, 14 March 2008. The case considers whether an employer who calls a performance bond is obliged to account to the contractor for any overpayment. The pursuer, Spiersbridge Property Ltd (Spiersbridge) entered into a building contract with Muir Construction Ltd (Muir). Muir gave Spiersbridge an on demand performance bond (the Bond) from the Royal Bank of Scotland (the Bank). On 14 November 2006, Spiersbridge requested the bank for a bond alleging various breaches of contract from Muir. The bank made the payment and claimed back to Muir the amount paid to Spiersbridge. Muir argued that there was no breach of contract on his part; that Spiersbridge had no proper basis to ask for that money and requested that the sum paid by him to the bank should be reimbursed to him by Spiersbridge. There was no provision in the bond or the Building contract under such circumstances. The Outer house had to decide whether the entitlement to repayment of excess arose under the Bond or the Building contract. Held: The Court decide that the repayment term should be implied in the Building Contract.
MOSVOLDS REDERI A/S V FOOD CORP OF INDIA
SPIERSBRIDGE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED V MUIR CONSTRUCTION LIMITED
AUSTRALASIAN CONFERENCE ASSOCIATION V MAINLINE CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)
SHIRLAW V SOUTHERN FOUNDRIES (1926) LTD
CARGILL INTERNATIONAL SA V BANGLADESH SUGAR AND FOOD INDUSTRIES CORPORATION
SEEPONG ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION CO LIMITED V FORMULA 1 ADMINISTRATION LIMITED
WOOD HALL LIMITED V THE PIPELINE AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER
Scotland--1999-