 |
Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is www.wikilawschool.org |
Raffles v Wichelhaus: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|date=January 20, 1864 | |date=January 20, 1864 | ||
|subject=Contracts | |subject=Contracts | ||
|facts=* Plaintiff offered to sell a certain amount of cotton to Defendant. The cotton would be brought from India on a ship called the ''Peerless''. | |facts=*In the early 1860, the Union had cut off shipments of cotton from the South to the textile mills in Britain | ||
* There were apparently two ships with that name, and the Defendant and the Plaintiff were each thinking about different ones. | **As a result, 100,000s of textile workers in Britain had become un-employed | ||
** One was supposed to leave from Bombay in October, and | *Wichelhaus = defendant = British cotton broker purchasing cotton from production sites other than the Confederate States of America | ||
** the other was supposed to leave in December. | *Raffles = plaintiff = cotton producer in Bombay, India | ||
* 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. | *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. | |reasons=* Each person was agreeing to a different thing. | ||
* The intent of every party was not what the other party thought. | * The intent of every party was not what the other party thought. | ||
| Line 28: | Line 36: | ||
}} | }} | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 02:14, December 27, 2023
| Raffles v Wichelhaus | |
| Court | Court of Exchequer |
|---|---|
| Citation | 2 Hurl. & C. 906 159 Eng. Rep. 375 |
| Date decided | January 20, 1864 |
Facts
- In the early 1860, 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.
Resources
