Hamlyn & Co. v. Talisker Distillery
United Kingdom House of Lords
[1894] AC 202 (1894)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
In January 1892, Talisker Distillery (Talisker) (plaintiff) entered a contract with Hamlyn & Co. (Hamlyn) (defendant). The contract required Hamlyn to provide a patent drying machine and Talisker to deliver Hamlyn’s dried grain. The agreement contained an arbitration agreement requiring two members of London Corn Exchange to settle all disputes arising out of the contract. Shortly after the execution of the contract, Talisker filed a lawsuit in Scotland, claiming a breach of contract. Hamlyn argued the Scottish court of session lacked jurisdiction over the matter because of the arbitration clause in the contract. The court of session found the court had jurisdiction. Upon the appeal by Hamlyn, the decision of the court of session was later affirmed. The appellate court found that lex loci solutionis, or the law of the place where relevant performance of the contract occurred, governed the arbitration clause. The appellate court found, therefore, that Scottish law applied to the arbitration clause and that the arbitration clause was invalid. Hamlyn then appealed to the House of Lords, arguing the Scottish courts lacked jurisdiction under the arbitration clause.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Herschell, J.)
Concurrence (Ashbourne, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.