Hartog v Colin & Shields PDF

Preview

Summary

Exams practise...

Description

Title: Hartog v Colin & Shields Parties: Plaintiff – Hartog Defendant – Colin & Shields Court: King’s Bench Division Date: June 27, 1939 Procedural History: The plaintiff brought action for the damages for breach of a contract of sales of goods in the King’s bench Division Court. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had agreed to sell him 3000 Argentine hare skins and had fail to delivered them. The plaintiff claimed the loss of profits, or, in alternative, the difference between the contract price and the market price at the time of breach. Case Facts: The defendants contracted to sell to the plaintiff 30000 Argentine hare skins, but by an allege mistake they offered the goods at certain 10 1/4d per lb instead of at those price per piece. In verbal and written negotiations which took place prior the sale, reference had always been made to the price per piece, and expert evidence was given that Argentine hare skins were generally sold at prices per piece. Legal Issue: Whether a binding contract of sale of Argentine hare skins was formed between the plaintiff and the defendants. Wants of Plaintiff: 1. Claimed the loss of profits as the defendants failed to deliver the hare skins, or 2. Claimed the difference between the contract price and the market price at the time of breach. Defendant Arguments: 1. The offer was wrongly expressed, but the plaintiff was well aware of this mistake on their part, and fraudulently accepted this offer. 2. There was no binding contract was formed, and, if there was, counterclaimed for its rescission. Decision of Court: The plaintiff did not make a binding contract with the defendants by his acceptance of the offer.

Judge’s Opinion (Singleton, J.): 1. The plaintiff knew there was a mistake in the offer and sought to take advantage of that mistake. 2. The price of skins had been discussed per price in the verbal negotiation and correspondence. 3. The evidence of Mr. Wilcox, on behalf of the defendants, was more likely to be right, which the price of hare skins was discussed per piece generally in this country. 4. It was difficult to believe that any one could receive an offer at such a low price without having the gravest doubts of it. 5. There was an absolute difference in the manner of quotation, in that the skins are offered per lb instead of per piece. 6. The plaintiff could not reasonably have supposed that the offer contained the offerers’ real intention. Rule of Law: An intending purchaser is not permitted to “snap up” an offer which he knows to have been made under mistake....