Langford & Company v Dutch
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 06 November 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 2. |
| Date | 06 November 1952 |
| Court | Court of Session (Inner House - First Division) |
1ST DIVISION.
Contract—Breach of contract—Agreement to show film advertisement for one year—Consideration payable quarterly in advance—Repudiation of contract by advertiser prior to making of film—Subsequent execution of contract by other party—Action for payment of whole consideration—Relevancy.
A firm of advertising contractors entered into an agreement with a hairdresser to advertise the hairdresser's business by means of an advertising film at a picture house for one year, commencing with the first appearance of the advertisement. The hairdresser agreed to pay for the advertisement at the rate of £104 per annum, payable quarterly in advance. Five days after concluding the agreement, the hairdresser wrote to the contractors asking them to cancel it, but they proceeded with the execution of the contract, and, about three months later, commenced to display the film. About five months after the first display, they brought an action for the full contract consideration of £104.
Held that, on the averments, the pursuers' claim was not justified—the proper remedy in such a case, apart from wholly exceptional circumstances, being a claim for damages for breach of contract; and the action dismissed as irrelevant.
International Correspondence Schools, Limited v. Irving, 1915 S. C. 28, distinguished, particularly in respect that in that case performance under the contract was a unum quid and had already been commenced when the contract was repudiated.
Langford & Company, Limited, a company carrying on business as advertising contractors in London, brought an action in the Sheriff Court at Glasgow against Ivy Dutch, carrying on business as a ladies' hairdresser in Perth, for payment of £104. The defender had prorogated the jurisdiction of that Court.
The pursuers averred, inter alia:—(Cond. 2) "By agreement entered into between the parties on 27th October 1949 the pursuers agreed to advertise the business of the defender on an advertising film at the Playhouse, Perth, for one year from the first appearance, and the defender agreed to pay to the pursuers the sum of £104 per annum, payable quarterly in advance, commencing from the first day of exhibition. It was further agreed between the parties that, where any payment is in arrear for a period of twenty-eight days, the pursuers may claim immediate payment for the whole amount for the full term of the contract. …The agreement is referred to for its terms.1… The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Attica Sea Carriers Corporation v Ferrostaal Poseidon Bulk Reederei G.m.b.H. (Puerto Buitrago)
...Lord Keith. The speech of Lord Reid included the following passages. 37 At page 429 with reference to the Scottish decision in Langford & Co. Limited. -v- Dutch, 1925 S.C.15, Lord Reid said, "Of course, if it had boon necessary for the defender to do or accept anything before the contract c......
-
White and Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor
...the action was that in the circumstances an action for implement of the contract was inappropriate. He relied on the decision in Langford & Co., Ltd. v. Dutch 1952 S.C. 15, and cannot be criticised for having done 3The pursuers appealed to the Court of Session and on 2nd November, 1960, th......
-
Blake (Dermott Lewis) and Joan Blake v Keith Hustin
...disregard or refuse to accept and then the contract remains in full effect." 44 Lord Reid also expressed the view that the case Langford & Company v Dutch [1952] SC 15 was wrongly decided. In the case of Langford, an advertising contractor agreed to exhibit a film for one year. Four days a......
- Clea Shipping Corporation v Bulk Oil International Ltd (No. 2) (Alaskan Trader)
-
Good faith and Post-Repudiation Conduct
...the contract involved in the present case as reflecting a ‘peculiarity’ (as in the Scottish case cited at 429: Langford & Co Ltd v Dutch (1952) SC 15). 32White and Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor [1962] AC 413, 431 (Lord Reid). 2015 Good Faith and Post-Repudiation Conduct 79 The House of L......
-
The White & Carter Principle: A Restatement
...& Carter v McGregor [1961] 3 All ER 1178 at 1182, [1962] AC 473 at 429^430,criticising the Lord President in Langford & Co Ltd v Dutch1952 SC 15) and cond uctwhich is wholly unreasonable (see per Kerr J inThe Odenfeld [1978 ] 2 Lloy d’s Rep 357at 374).But however di⁄cult it maybe to de¢ne t......