Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 20 views

    Case Brief

    Uploaded by

    Sazzad Hossain
    The document provides summaries of two case brief samples: 1) Hartog v Colin and Shields (1939) involved a mistaken offer to sell hare skins at a price much lower than intended. The court found no binding contract since the offeree should have known of the offeror's mistake. 2) Scriven Bros v Hindley (1913) involved a misleading auction catalogue that led bidders to misunderstand what was being auctioned. The court found no contract since the offeror's mistake had been induced by the carelessness of the claimants.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Brief

    Uploaded by

    Sazzad Hossain
    20 views2 pages
    The document provides summaries of two case brief samples: 1) Hartog v Colin and Shields (1939) involved a mistaken offer to sell hare skins at a price much lower than intended. The court found no binding contract since the offeree should have known of the offeror's mistake. 2) Scriven Bros v Hindley (1913) involved a misleading auction catalogue that led bidders to misunderstand what was being auctioned. The court found no contract since the offeror's mistake had been induced by the carelessness of the claimants.

    Original Description:

    Contract Law cases

    Original Title

    case brief

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document provides summaries of two case brief samples: 1) Hartog v Colin and Shields (1939) involved a mistaken offer to sell hare skins at a price much lower than intended. The court found no binding contract since the offeree should have known of the offeror's mistake. 2) Scriven Bros v Hindley (1913) involved a misleading auction catalogue that led bidders to misunderstand what was being auctioned. The court found no contract since the offeror's mistake had been induced by the carelessness of the claimants.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    20 views2 pages

    Case Brief

    Uploaded by

    Sazzad Hossain
    The document provides summaries of two case brief samples: 1) Hartog v Colin and Shields (1939) involved a mistaken offer to sell hare skins at a price much lower than intended. The court found no binding contract since the offeree should have known of the offeror's mistake. 2) Scriven Bros v Hindley (1913) involved a misleading auction catalogue that led bidders to misunderstand what was being auctioned. The court found no contract since the offeror's mistake had been induced by the carelessness of the claimants.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    CASE BRIEF SAMPLES

    LLB 106

    A. Hartog v Colin and Shields (1939) 3 ALL ER 566

    Facts: The defendants entered in to a contract to sell 3000 Argentine hare skins to the
    plaintiff, but by mistake they were offered at a price of 10d per pound instead of 10d per
    piece. The mistaken price appeared to be very low because there were three pieces to
    the pound. When the defendants discovered their mistake, they refused to deliver the
    skin. The claimants brought an action in respect of the defendant’s non delivery of the
    skins. In the pre-sale negotiations reference had always been made to the price per
    piece and never to the price per pound, and generally Argentine hare skins were sold
    always by prices per piece. The court prevented the claimants from succeeding in their
    claim.

    Issue: Was there a binding contract even when the offeree knows that the offeror is
    suffering from a mistake as to the terms of the offer?

    Holding: Since the claimant could not reasonably have supposed that the offer
    contained the offeror’s real intention, there was no binding contract.

    Rationale: If the offeree knows or ought to reasonably have known at the time of the
    purported acceptance that the offeror had made a mistake relating to the terms of the
    offer, the offeree cannot purport to accept the offer. As a result, a greater emphasis
    upon the subjective intentions of the parties has to be made.

    Comments:
    CASE BRIEF SAMPLES
    LLB 106

    B. Scriven Bros v Hindley (1913) 3 KB 564

    Facts: The claimant’s auctioneer put up for sale lots of hemp and tow. The auction
    catalogue was misleading because it implied that the lots were the same when, in fact,
    the second lot only contained tow. Tow was considerably cheaper than hemp. The
    defendants bid for the lot, thinking that it was hemp when in fact it was tow. The
    auctioneer did not realize that the defendants had misunderstood what was being
    auctioned; he merely thought that they had overhauled the tow. When the defendants
    discovered their mistake, they refused to pay the price. The claimants sued for the
    price. The court decided that no contract for sale of tow had been concluded.

    Issues: Was there a binding contract when the offeree is at fault in failing to note that
    the offeror has made a mistake?

    Holding: Any reasonable person in the position of the defendants would have been
    misled by the auction catalogue, therefore the claimants were not entitled to enforce
    their version of the contract against the defendants. The defendant’s mistake had been
    induced by the carelessness of claimants in preparing the auction catalogue.

    Rationale: Subjective intention of a party becomes relevant when offeree cannot find
    that the offeror has made a mistake.

    Comments:

    You might also like