CAMPBELL v McCREATH
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 08 November 1974 |
| Date | 08 November 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 5. |
| Court | Court of Session (Outer House) |
OUTER HOUSE.
Lord Stott.
PartnershipSolicitorsTwo separate firms, each with the same two partnersOne firm through one partner, in heritable transaction with other firm through the remaining partnerWhether knowledge of one partner's client's affairs imputed to other partnerOstensible authorityRatificationRelevancy.
At a meeting, at a farm, between a potential purchaser thereof and the owner, the former made a verbal offer to purchase, of 65,000, in response to which the latter indicated his willingness to sell for 70,000. Following thereon the owner advised his solicitor, a partner in a Whithorn firm of solicitors, to expect an offer of 70,000 from a Stranraer firm of solicitors, but advising him, further, that he, the owner, wished to consider the terms of that offer before instructing its acceptance. An interval of three weeks elapsed, when the owner's solicitor, contrary to the instructions given him, sent an offer, on the owner's behalf, to sell the farm to the potential purchaser, and following thereon missives of sale were concluded on the parties' behalf. The said two firms constituted, in each case, partnerships of the same two solicitors, one of these solicitors, through the Whithorn firm as aforesaid, representing the owner, and the other, through the Stranraer firm, representing the purchaser.
In an action for implement of the missives, at the instance of the purchaser, the owner averred that "the fact that (he) had not instructed (his solicitor in Whithorn) to send out the said offer was known to the (purchaser's solicitors in Stranraer) in respect that the partners of the (Stranraer firm) were also the whole partners of the (Whithorn firm)."
Held (1) while under partnership law, notice to one partner of any matter relating to partnership affairs operated as notice to the partnership, this did not apply to the affairs of clients of the partnership; (2) the relevant knowledge of the owner's solicitor could thus not be imputed to the purchaser's solicitor; and (3) the purchaser was thus entitled to take advantage of the offer ostensibly made on the owner's behalf.
Circumstances in which by receiving a down payment of 10 per cent towards the price as stipulated for in the missives, and retaining that payment for three months, the owner had in any event ratified the sale.
John Campbell raised an action against James M'Creath concluding, inter alia, for declarator and implement of a sale by the latter to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Winkworth v Edward Baron Development Company Ltd
... ... Burns v. Burns [1984] Ch. 317; [1984] 2 W.L.R. 582; [1984] 1 All E.R. 244, C.A ... Campbell v. M'Creath, 1975 S.C. 81 ... Williams & Glyn's Bank Ltd. v. Boland [1981] A.C. 487; [1980] 3 W.L.R. 138; [1980] 2 All E.R. 408, H.L.(E.) ... The ... ...
- Zurich GSG Ltd v Gray & Kellas
-
Zurich Gsg Limited V. Gray & Kellas+john Peter Shaw Gray+caroline Jane Davis+graham Morrison+fiona Margaret Barker+john Robert Simpson Hardie
...counsel were agreed, that there is a dearth of authority as to the effect of section 16 (the decision of Lord Stott in Campbell v M'Creath 1975 SC 81 was noticed but neither Mr Johnston nor Mr Robertson commended it as an authority from which I might draw assistance). However, I did not und......
-
Leeds And Holbeck Building Society V. Alex Morison & Co And Others
...of loss. Counsel referred to Bristol & West Building Society v. Rollo Steven & Bond, 1998 S.L.T. 9; Haberstich v McCormick & Nicholson 1975 S.C.81; Bristol & West Building Society v Fancy & Jackson [1997] 4 All.E.R.582. [47]I consider that the contention of counsel for the pursuers is well-......