Morrisson v Robertson

Morrisson v Robertson (1908 SC 332) is a case establishing the common law principles that govern unilateral error in Scots law.[1]

Facts

A man claiming to be the son of Wilson of Bonnyrigg approached Morrisson and offered to buy two cows from him. Although Morrisson did not know the man, he knew of Wilson, who was a neighbouring farmer of good financial standing. Accordingly, he let the man have the two cows on credit. In fact, the man was not the son of Wilson but a rogue called Telford. Telford sold the two cows to Robertson. When Morrisson found this out he sought to recover the cows from Robertson.

Judgment

The action was successful. It was held that there had been no contract between Morrisson and Telford. The purported transaction was a complete nullity. Accordingly, Telford had no rights which he could pass on to Robertson, so Morrisson was entitled to recover his cows.

gollark: Or secrets which you don't want to get out, say.
gollark: "Real" antimemes don't do this because you know about their existence/can perceive them, but just don't want to spread them for whatever reason.
gollark: They would be made anomalously inclined to ignore chains of logic which might lead to "thus antimeme".
gollark: It's not exactly very internally consistent, but humans are *masters* of rationalization.
gollark: It happens still, but they don't know why, and are unable to infer the presence of the antimeme from it.

See also

References
  1. Plausible rogues: contract and property Archived 2007-06-12 at the Wayback Machine, EdinLR Vol 9 (2005) pp 150-156
  • Contract, Third Edition, Greens Concise Scots Law, Stephen Woolman & Jonathan Lake.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.