28
material change of circumstances which would bring the Agreement to an end and (8) why the Agreement is not contra bonos mores.
Jurisdiction
[47] In Mr Lindsay's submission the pursuer has relevantly averred that this court has jurisdiction, as the value of the rights forming the subject matter of this action exceeds £100,000. He referred to the averments in articles 1 and 9 of condescendence which provided:
"1. … The value of the rights forming the subject matter of this action exceeds £100,000. As hereinafter condescended upon, the defender's new policy will reduce the capital value of the pursuer's one third share of the Partnership by more than £100,000. In this regard, reference is made to the averments in article 9 of condescendence, infra. In addition, the capital value of the pursuer's own barony title will be reduced in value by approximately £75,000 if it can no longer be sold with the purchaser being recognised by the defender as the Baron or Baroness of Lag. With such recognition, the pursuer's barony title has a capital value of approximately £85,000. Without such recognition, its value is approximately £10,000. This court accordingly has jurisdiction …"
and, in Article 9:
"9 … Accordingly, the new policy has had and will continue to have a detrimental impact upon the business of the Partnership, of which the pursuer is a partner. The pursuer's profits from the sale of barony titles, as a partner of the Partnership, have averaged £62,328 per annum over the last 5 years. As the new policy will have a detrimental impact upon the business of the Partnership, by reducing the number of sales and by reducing purchase prices, the capital value of the pursuer's one third share of the Partnership will be reduced. The pursuer reasonably estimates that the new policy will reduce the capital value of her one third share of the Partnership by at least £100,000 …" (Emphasis added by pursuer.)
[48] Mr Lindsay submitted that these averments relevantly aver that the value of the rights forming the subject matter of this action exceeds £100,000. In addition, reasonable and adequate specification is given of why this is the case. As the pursuer has relevantly averred that this court has jurisdiction, this issue cannot be determined against the pursuer
