A, the owner of a patent for a fibre decorticating machine, entered into an agreement with B, the owner of an estate in Borneo, whereby it was stipulated that A should supply and erect one of the machines on B’s estate, and if it proved satisfactory that B should pay for it a sum to cover cost, freight, and cost of erection, that terms should be arranged for the use of the decorticators on the estate, and that the area under fibre cultivation should be increased by 25 acres per three months up to 1000 acres. A decorticating machine was supplied and erected by A. Within a year after the date of this contract, and after the supply and delivery of the machine, he assigned his patent to a limited liability company, together with ‘licences, concessions, and the like,’ receiving certain shares in the company, inter alia, for the patent, and for ‘contracts and concessions.’ Thereafter the company with consent of A brought an action against B, in which they sued as assignees of the contract between A and B. They ultimately restricted their claim to the sum due for the machine supplied and erected by A. In defence B pleaded ‘No title to sue.’ Held (affirming the judgment of the Second Division) that this plea must be sustained, in respect (1) that the contract between A and B as a whole involved delectus personae, and was consequently not assignable; and (2) that any jus crediti for a money payment arising out of the contract, if there was any assignable claim of that kind which had become a complete debt before the date of the assignation, had not in fact been assigned.
Judges:
Lord Chancellor (Halsbury), and Lords Ashbourne, Shand, Davey, Brampton, and Robertson
Citations:
[1901] UKHL 578, 38 SLR 578
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Contract
Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.630990