There is no distinction in Scotland between simple contracts and specialties. Most contracts relating to personal property may be parole. No consideration is requisite to support a promise, whether verbal or written.

Definition source

Kinnear, J. B., Digest of House of Lords Cases Decided on Appeal from Scotland, 1709-1864 — Glossary of Scottish Law Terms (Edinburgh, 1865). Public domain.

Legal Subject: Contract

Case	Date	Legal Subject	Abstract
A. R. Henderson v. John Mackay	1831	Diligence, Employment, Damages, Contract, Interlocutor, Breach of Contract
Alexander v. Montgomery	1771	Contract	Robert Alexander, the pursuer, owned property in the town of Ayr that contained coal deposits. On behalf of his brother Robert Alexander, William Alexander exchanged letters with James Montgomery, Dr. John Campbell, and the other partners of the coal company at Newton of Ayr. Through this series of letters, the parties apparently agreed that Montgomery would deliver and the coal company would purchase the coal from Montgomery's property. Montgomery et al. denied the existence of a formal contract. Montgomery et al. also argued that Alexander was late delivering the coal.
Attorney of Thomas Cullen & Co v. David Philp	1792	Debt, Creditor, Bill of Exchange, Contract, Employment, Pactum Illicitum	The attorney of Thomas Cullen and Company opposed David Philp, merchant in Boarhills, who as suspender pleaded that no action could lie upon bills alleged to have arisen from a smuggling transaction in which the pursuers were principals or accessories. The attorney replied that this plea of non-action for smuggled goods was unjust and unsupported by law or fact.
Bowden and Gibson v. Esten and Bennett	1794	Contract, Parole Evidence, Debt, Arbitration, Defamation, Aliment	Bowden and Gibson, as pursuers, maintained that the pursuer was entitled to his salary for eighteen nights under his engagement with Mrs. Esten, despite Esten and Bennett's refusal to allow him to perform as agreed. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Campbell v. Campbell	1786	Contract	This case was a dispute over the sale of a horse. The pursuer, Dugald Campbell of Craignish, alleged that Neil Campbell of Duntroon sold him a horse that turned out to be lame. Case documents include a number of depositions by witnesses.
Chisholm v. Lord Gardenston's Interlocutor	1791	Aliment, Heritor, Contract, Tack, Adjudication, Sequestration	William Chisholm petitioned the Court to alter Lord Gardenston's interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Corse, et al v Kibble	1793	Copartnership, Contract, Sale, Debt, Dissolution, Partnership	James Kibble, defender in an action raised by Robert Corse, John Black, James Buchanan, and Archibald Buchanan, petitioned to alter the court’s interlocutor, arguing that a resolution of 11 July binding the partners to dissolve their firm at Candlemas 1793 violated the partnership’s unanimity clause. Corse and his co-pursuers answered, maintaining that Kibble acted against his own interest and sought injurious terms.
Creditors of David Currie v. William Hannay	1791	Debt, Penalty, Damages, Creditor, Contract, Forfeiture	The creditors of David Currie pursued William Hannay regarding whether articles of roup imposed a binding obligation. Hannay petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor, and John Currie, as eldest son and apparent heir of David Currie, and Hugh Corrie, Writer to the Signet, answered, maintaining that the articles created no binding obligation.
Cunningham and Simpson v. Sir George Home, Baronet, and the Commissioners for raising Seamen at the Port of Leith	1795	Debt, Arrestment, Statute, Common Law, Contract, Jurisdiction	Cunningham and Simpson petitioned the Court to alter the interlocutor of Lord Dreghorn, Ordinary on the bills, which had refused a bill of suspension in the matter of apprentices Dowie, Stewart, and Drysdale. They subsequently sought suspension of the judgment and interdict against Sir George Home, Baronet, and the Commissioners for raising Seamen at the Port of Leith, and their officers, regarding the levying and carrying away of apprentices Dowie and Stewart.
Dickson v. Irving	1796	Aliment, Heritor, Interlocutor, Debt, Presbytery, Contract	David Dickson, minister of the Gospel at St Mungo, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutors in a suspension process against William Bell Irving of Whitehill, a heritor of the parish, wherein Dickson acted as Charger and Irving as Suspenders. Irving answered the petition.
Duguid v. Hall, et al	1788	Debt, Interlocutor, Credit, Oath, Caution, Contract	James Duguid petitioned the Court to alter the Lord Ordinary’s interlocutor and suspend the letters simpliciter issued against him, challenging the enforcement of a Magistrates’ decree. John Hall, John Tenant, and William Sprott answered, asserting that the Magistrates’ decree had been properly enforced and the petitioner’s claims were groundless.
Duke of Atholl v. Robertson	1797	Contract, Servitude, Decreet-Arbitral, Interlocutor, Possession, Suspension	James Robertson petitioned the Court of Session to challenge a 1761 arbitral decree affirming the Duke of Atholl’s ownership of seven shealings, arguing that the underlying 1716 contract was void under statute and contrary to public interest. The Duke defended the contractual and arbitral rulings, maintaining his title to the forest lands while acknowledging that the decrees reserved limited pasturage rights to Lude under specified conditions.
Dunmore and Company v. Allan, et al	1786	Ships, Insurance, Warranty, Adjudication, Bill of Exchange, Contract	Robert Dunmore and Company, merchants in Glasgow, raised an action against Richard Allan and other insurers in Glasgow and Archibald Campbell and other insurers in Greenock regarding a maritime insurance contract and questions of convoy obligations and warranty terms. The merchants petitioned the Court to overturn an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Braxfield, and the insurers answered the petition.
Dunmore v. Trustee for Buchanans	1796	Bankruptcy, Sequestration, Contract, Debt, Creditor, Trustee	Robert Dunmore, Esq. petitioned the Court of Session to alter a recent interlocutor pronounced in his litigation against the Trustee for Buchanans. He submitted an initial petition on 15 February 1797 seeking this relief, and subsequently presented an additional petition on 4 March 1797 reiterating his request that the Court modify its order.
Edinburgh Oil Gas Light Company v. Sir William Baillie of Polkemmet, Baronet, and Others, Trustees of the deceased Da…	1835	Debt, Statute, Contract, Partnership, Interest, Succession	The Edinburgh Oil Gas Light Company raised an action against Sir William Baillie of Polkemmet and others, as trustees of the deceased shareholder David Clyne, to enforce statutory calls for unpaid shares under the Edinburgh Oil Gas Company Act. The defenders denied liability, contending that the company had abandoned its oil-gas operations and improperly transferred its assets to a coal-gas concern, thereby invalidating the demands. The pursuers maintained their statutory right to recover expenses from the estate, while the defenders persisted in their challenges and ultimately reclaimed against the interlocutor, seeking to sustain their defences and be assoilzied from the action.
Fleming v. Montgomery	1794	Succession, Teinds, Stipend, Contract, Tack, Heritor	Lady Clementina Fleming pursued Montgomery regarding the tithes of the barony of Stobo, seeking to convert the payment from meal to money in accordance with a 1730 decree of valuation. The defender maintained that the Lord Chief Baron and ministers of Stobo were bound by historical tacks and prior decrees of modification that governed the form of payment. The litigation proceeded through competing memorials addressing whether the 1730 valuation or the historical obligations should determine how the tithes were rendered.
Folsetter and Wright v. Lord Justice Clerk's Interlocutor	1786	Apprentice, Contract, Theft, Interlocutor, Sequestration, Fraud	William Folsetter and James Cobban petitioned the Court to alter the Lord Justice Clerk's interlocutor on the bills. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Forbes, Hunter, and Company v. Edinburgh Life Assurance Company	1829	Insurance, Contract, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Representation, Aliment	Sir William Forbes, James Hunter, and Company, bankers, raised an action against the Edinburgh Life Assurance Company to recover £3000 sterling payable under a policy of assurance. The defenders resisted payment, asserting that the policy was void due to misrepresentation and the non-statement of material facts at the time of effecting the insurance. The cause subsequently proceeded to a Bill of Exceptions for the defenders.
Gentle v. Heritors of Crieff	1792	Debt, Heritor, Aliment, Contract, Arrestment, Interlocutor	James Gentle, writer in Edinburgh, pursued the Heritors of Crieff for exoneration from a bond of caution and relief from expenses arising from a church contract, contending that unpaid shares and material cost increases since 1778 rendered the Heritors liable for the losses. The Heritors answered that the loss was Gentle's own, and the cause proceeded through replies and duplies disputing the contractual responsibility. William Lumsdain separately petitioned for remit of answer expenses and delivery of his bond of caution, and after the Heritors petitioned to alter an Inner-house interlocutor, Gentle responded reaffirming his claim for exoneration based on the church cost claims.
George Gordon and Alexander Stewart v. Alexander Lawrence	1832	Contract, Debt, Tack, Teinds, Aliment, Expenses	George Gordon and Alexander Stewart pursued Alexander Lawrence, a slater in Keith, regarding disputes over slate supply, pricing, and carriage. Lawrence reclaimed against the interlocutor of Lord Corehouse, and the parties lodged a mutual appendix detailing their competing claims concerning the slate transactions.
Grants v. Nicol	1796	Arrestment, Creditor, Contract, Debt, Bankruptcy, Heritor	William Grant, Daniel Grant, and Alexander Grant petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor of Lord Swinton concerning their claim to payment preference for work completed after Cruickshanks' default under a contract for church construction. David Monypenny, appearing for the respondent Nicol, submitted a memorial arguing that Nicol was entitled to preference over the petitioners in recovering payment for timber supplied under the contract.
Hamilton v. Hunter and Co.	1782	Contract	This case was about the purchase of an insurance policy by a broker. Robert Hunter and Company, in Saltcoats, asked James Hamilton, an insurance broker in Glasgow, to procure an insurance policy for a ship sailing to the Firth of Clyde. Hunter and Co. specified that the policy should not cost more than eight guineas per cent. However, Hamilton was unable to find insurance at this price, so he procured a policy at nine guineas per cent, paying the difference himself. He then wrote Hunter and Co. to inform them of the action he had taken. In the letter, Hamilton stated that if Hunter and Co. did not approve of the policy, they could have it vacated by sending a return letter "in course of post." Hunter and Co. wrote back two days later to reject the policy; in the meantime, the ship in question had arrived safely. Hamilton sued for payment of the premium. In response, Hunter and Co. argued that their rejection of the policy was valid.
Hill v. Swinton	1796	Contract, Security, Deed, Breach of Contract, Debt, Copyright	Peter Hill, bookseller in Edinburgh, sought to relinquish his interest in the copyright of a book he had contracted to publish with John Swinton, Advocate. Swinton maintained that Hill remained bound by the agreement to accept delivery of sixty copies annually until all four hundred and eighty-six remaining copies were delivered. The pleadings set forth the parties' competing positions on the enforceability of the publication contract and the disposition of the unsold stock.
Hog and Others v. Creditors of John Stewart &c	1792	Debt, Copartnership, Creditor, Bill of Exchange, Contract, Dissolution	James Hog, Cashier of the Paisley Banking Company, and others petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Gardenston at the instance of the creditors of John Stewart and Company. The creditors answered that the bills in question had been drawn after the dissolution of the copartnership, thereby contesting the grounds for the petition.
Inglis v. Lord Stonefield's Interlocutor	1789	Fraud, Contract, Damages, Aliment, Interlocutor, Proof	William Inglis presented a reclaiming petition asking the Court of Session to alter its interlocutor on damages for non-implementation of a bear-delivery agreement with Lord Stonefield. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
John Ure, and other Heritors within the Royalty of the Burgh of Forfar v. Patrick Carnegy, and Others, Heritors of the Landward District of the Parish of Forfar	1792	Decreet-Arbitral, Heritor, Burgh, Teinds, Contract, Debt	John Ure and the other heritors within the royalty of the burgh of Forfar pursued Patrick Carnegy and the other heritors of the landward district of the parish regarding the method of dividing the church. The pursuers argued that the church ought to be divided in proportion to population, while the defenders maintained that it should be divided according to valued rent as settled by Lord Coalston's decree. Both parties presented informations to the Court setting forth these competing claims.
Kirkpatrick v. Maxwells	1795	Succession, Possession, Contract, Prescription, Tack, Trustee	William Kirkpatrick claimed title to Kirkcudbright lands against the heirs and husbands of Sir Robert Maxwell’s sisters, who defended by asserting their own prior title founded upon ancient charters and prescription. After the Court issued an interlocutor, Kirkpatrick petitioned to have it altered, and the defenders subsequently disputed his claim.
Knox v. Faculty of Procurators in Glasgow	1798	Procurator, Charter, Faculty, Penalty, Interlocutor, Contract	Hugh Knox, Writer in Glasgow, petitioned the Court against the Faculty of Procurators in Glasgow, seeking to remit their regulation that imposed £30 of entry money upon him on the grounds that his apprenticeship had ended before the regulation was enacted and the charge was therefore retrospective and oppressive. The Faculty answered, defending the regulation against his claims.
Lawson v. Macculloch	1797	Aliment, Debt, Interlocutor, Contract, Contract of separation, Creditor	David Macculloch petitioned the Court to remit Lord Craig's interlocutor, which found him liable to his wife, Lawson, for expenses and denied her claim to a larger aliment. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Lockhart v. Douglas	1792	Tack, Teinds, Contract, Stipend, Aliment, Succession	Sir James Lockhart of Lee pursued the Duke of Hamilton and Brandon regarding teinds in Stonehouse, claiming entitlement under a 1673 contract and arguing that the Duke’s right had expired in 1751. The Duke maintained that Lockhart could claim no additional teind-bolls beyond those settled in the 1673 contract. Lockhart subsequently petitioned the Court to alter its prior interlocutor concerning the allocation of teind bolls and augmentation burdens under that agreement.
Maxwells v. Kirkpatrick	1793	Succession, Possession, Contract, Prescription, Debt, Teinds	Heirs of Sir Robert Maxwell petitioned the court regarding title to Kirkcudbright Castle and its lands, challenging a 1793 interlocutor by claiming through Maclellane heirs and a 1664 contract with Sir David Dunbar and arguing that unfulfilled conditions invalidated Dunbar’s claims. William Kirkpatrick, trustee for Robert Maxwell, defended his title under a 1740 deed and 1762 trust. The heirs subsequently resisted Kirkpatrick’s eviction attempt by asserting rights through prescription and prior appraisings.
McBrayne v. Arthur	1786	Contract, Copartnership, Sale, Possession, Valuation, Tack	Donald M'Brayne sought suspension against Arthur to prevent the partners from altering business affairs following the expiry of their contract, alleging breach of the Sixth Article which required an offer of assets. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
McKenzie v. Buchanan and Company	1792	Arrestment, Debt, Contract, Aliment, Employment, Action	Daniel M'Kenzie, a spinner, pursued James and Archibald Buchanans and Company, his masters, contending that they had unlawfully deducted from his wages without contractual authority. The Buchanans subsequently petitioned the Court to overturn an inner-house interlocutor that had been pronounced against them.
Mitchell v. Lord Alva's Interlocutor	1787	Contract, Debt, Damages, Action, Bargain, Interlocutor	Pursuer Thomas Mitchell petitioned the Court of Session to alter its recent interlocutor in the dispute with Lord Alva. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Mrs. Julian (Steel) Porterfield v. Boyd Porterfield	1770	Marriage, Contract, Obligations	Defender Julian Steel was married to William Porterfield, the uncle of pursuer Boyd Porterfield. William Porterfield died without children, leaving Boyd Porterfield as his only heir. The marriage contract between Steel and Porterfield stipulated that, should Steel survive her husband, Steel would receive an annuity of 2,000 merks and a dwelling house (or the financial equivalent) from the Porterfield estate. Following the death of William Porterfield, Steel and Boyd Porterfield entered into a contract regarding rents from the lands of the estate. Steel alleged that she should have received more from the rents from the lands.
Mustart v. Stonefield's Interlocuter	1794	Impress Service, Contract, Interlocutor, Interdict, Fraud, Collusion	Alexander Muftart and John Muftart petitioned the Court of Session to alter its recent interlocutor in their case against Stonefield. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Palmer and Others v. Macmillan	1794	Interlocutor, Advocation, Contract, Property, Sequestration, Rent	Palmer and Others, as defenders, argued that the Court of Session should affirm a Sheriff's interlocutor prohibiting Macmillan from exposing butcher-meat in front of his house. They presented information maintaining that the prohibition ought to be upheld.
Robert Armour v. James Young	1774	Contract	Defender James Young ordered a quantity of superfine black cloth from pursuer Robert Armour, who routinely sold fabric at fixed prices on behalf of a merchant in Worcester. Armour claimed that the parcel of cloth that was delivered to Young included an invoice specifying the price. However, Young refused to pay that price, and Armour brought suit before the magistrates of Glasgow. Young objected that he never agreed to a particular price, and further claimed that coarse cloth was delivered to him instead of superfine cloth. The magistrates admitted proof regarding the price of the disputed articles, and Armour appealed. The Lord Ordinary not only affirmed the price-related proof, but also directed that proof be allowed regarding whether or not Young had “complained of the bad quality of the cloth recently after delivery thereof.” Armour once again sought review, arguing that the case should be decided based on questions of law.
Rose v. Lord Cullen's Interlocutor	1801	Debt, Bargain, Aliment, Tack, Contract, Factor	The Right Hon. James Earl of Fife answered the petition of William Rose, late his factor, responding to allegations of breach of trust and confidential disclosure. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Scrimgeour and Son v. Alexander and Sons	1769	Contract, Affreightment, Ships	In March 1765, Edinburgh merchants Alexander & Sons contracted with the Borrowstounness merchant house of James Scrimgeour & Son to freight the ship the Duke of Athol for a voyage to Grenada—after considering a trip to Maryland or Virginia—with a cargo of herring, staves, and green linens. Due to a variety of accidents, the ship did not make it to Grenada until after the end of sugar season. Having no sugar to collect and bring back to Scotland, the agent at Grenada for Alexander & Sons convinced the ship’s captain to sail for (North) Carolina. Within days of the ship’s arrival in Wilmington, protests broke out over the Stamp Act, delaying the ship’s loading and departure for months. When the Duke of Athol finally returned to Leith, Alexander & Sons brought a legal dispute against James Scrimgeour & Son over the respective financial obligations of the parties due to the ship's delay.
Smart v. Interlocutor of Court	1793	Hypothec, Debt, Interlocutor, Bankruptcy, Collusion, Contract	John Smart presented a reclaiming petition asking the Court of Session to alter its recent interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
The Minister of the Parish of Falkland v. David Johnston and Others	1792	Teinds, Contract, Heritor, Glebe, Presbytery, Manse	The Minister of the Parish of Falkland, represented by the Reverend Mr Andrew Brown, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor regarding a manse-glebe exchange originally concluded in 1650. David Johnston, Captain Mungo Law, and their co-defenders answered, resisting the petition and maintaining the validity of the exchange, which had been upheld for more than a century.