Editing Raffles v Wichelhaus

{{Infobox Case Brief
|court=Court of Exchequer
|citation=2 Hurl. & C. 906*159 Eng. Rep. 375
|date=January 20, 1864
|subject=Contracts
|facts=*In the early 1860s, the Union had cut off shipments of cotton from the South to the textile mills in Britain
**As a result, 100,000s of textile workers in Britain had become un-employed
*Wichelhaus = defendant = British cotton broker purchasing cotton from production sites other than the Confederate States of America
*Raffles = plaintiff = cotton producer in Bombay, India
*Raffles signed a contract to sell 125 bales of cotton originating in India to Wichelhaus
*Plaintiff offered to sell a certain amount of cotton to Defendant. The cotton would be brought from India on a ship called the ''Peerless''.
*There were apparently two ships with that name, and the Defendant and the Plaintiff were each thinking about different ones. 
**One was supposed to leave from Bombay in October, and
**the other was supposed to leave in December.
*When the cotton arrived in England, the Defendant refused to pay. The ship that he was expecting to bring him the cotton had left India in October.
|issues=Should the contract be enforced?
|holding=The contract is not enforceable.
|judgment=Judgment for the Defendant.
|reasons=* Each person was agreeing to a different thing. 
* The intent of every party was not what the other party thought. 
* There was no meeting of the minds.
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/raffles-v-wichelhaus-the-i-peerless-i-case
|source_type=Video summary
|case_text_source=Quimbee
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
|link=https://law.justia.com/cases/foreign/united-kingdom/159-eng-rep-375-1864.html
|case_text_source=Justia
}}
|case_videos={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Video
|service=YouTube
|id=zVdCFrxT8Zw
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Video
|service=YouTube
|id=DRHRFJ75eUw
}}
}}
@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 *Raffles = plaintiff = cotton producer in Bombay, India
 *Raffles signed a contract to sell 125 bales of cotton originating in India to Wichelhaus
-*Raffles offered to sell a certain amount of cotton to Wichelhaus (Defendant). The cotton would be brought from India on a ship called the ''Peerless''.
+*Plaintiff offered to sell a certain amount of cotton to Defendant. The cotton would be brought from India on a ship called the ''Peerless''.
-*There were apparently 2 ships with that name, & the Defendant and the Plaintiff were each thinking about different ones.
+*There were apparently two ships with that name, and the Defendant and the Plaintiff were each thinking about different ones.
-**Peerless1: One was supposed to leave from Bombay in October, and
+**One was supposed to leave from Bombay in October, and
-**Peerless2: the other was supposed to leave in December.
+**the other was supposed to leave in December.
-**(We are using Peerless1 & Peerless 2 here for our case clarity. Both ships, again, were simply named ''Peerless''.)
+*When the cotton arrived in England, the Defendant refused to pay. The ship that he was expecting to bring him the cotton had left India in October.
-*Peerless1 (October) didn't deliver any cotton to Wichelhaus.
+|issues=Should the contract be enforced?
-*When the cotton arrived in England aboard Peerless2 (in December), the Defendant (Wichelhaus) refused to pay.
+|holding=The contract is not enforceable.
-**The ship that Wichelhaus was expecting to bring him the cotton had left India in October (Peerless1).
+|judgment=Judgment for the Defendant.
-*Wichelhaus didn't want to purchase the cotton in December price of the price hike between October & December!
-|procedural_history=* Raffles sued Wichelhaus in the British court of the exchequer.
-* Raffles announced that he had supply the correct amount & grade of cotton from Bombay to Liverpool aboard ''Peerless''.
-* Raffles complained that Wichelhauss had breached the contract by refusing to accept & pay for the cotton.
-|issues=Can parol evidence be offered to establish the meaning of a [https://www.quimbee.com/keyterms/latent-ambiguity latent ambiguity] in what otherwise appears to be an un-ambiguous contract?
-Should the contract be enforced?
-|arguments=* Raffles (the cotton seller) argued that the contract didn't specify a shipping date or arrival date.
-* Raffles didn't want [[Contracts/Parol evidence rule|parol evidence]]
-* Wichelhaus argued that the contract assumed that there was only 1 relevant vessel named ''Peerless''
-|holding=Wichelhaus's <u>parol evidence</u> (oral [https://www.quimbee.com/keyterms/extrinsic-evidence extrinsic evidence]) is admissible.
-The contract is not enforceable.
-|judgment=Judgment for the Defendant (Wichelhaus)
 |reasons=* Each person was agreeing to a different thing.
 * The intent of every party was not what the other party thought.