Page:Margaret Hamilton of Rockhall v Lord Lyon King of Arms.pdf/25

 :2. Moreover, on the pursuer's construction paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Agreement would have been entered into with the purpose of supporting a secondary market in baronies, and of supporting the values of baronies in that market. Such a contract, entered into by an officer of state bound by statute to exercise prerogative powers and duties, would be against public policy and contra bonos mores: Chitty on Contracts (33rd Ed, 2018) at paragraphs 16-047 to 16-053. It would bring into disrepute the office of Lord Lyon. Contracts are contrary to public policy in so far as they are entered into by officers of the Crown and purport to oblige them to favour a particular business or to create or support a market in dignities. While it may be proper for such an officer to publish a policy about his approach to the exercise of such powers, it cannot be right that one Lord Lyon may bind himself and successors in perpetuity or until (as the pursuer would have it) there is a material change of circumstances. The existence of, and need for, a wide discretion in such matters is clear from Kerr at paragraphs 8–10.


 * 3. The pursuer admits the defender's averments about various prior changes to the wording of Letters Patent, namely (i) the omission of the nobility clause from Letters Patent in respect of grants made after 2007; (ii) limiting the recognition of orders, honours and decorations to those awarded in the United Kingdom; and (iii) limiting the narration of qualifications.