Raffles v Wichelhaus
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
(Redirected from Raffles v. Wichelhaus)
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 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
- 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.
- There were apparently 2 ships with that name, & the Defendant and the Plaintiff were each thinking about different ones.
- Peerless1: One was supposed to leave from Bombay in October, and
- Peerless2: 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.)
- Peerless1 (October) didn't deliver any cotton to Wichelhaus.
- When the cotton arrived in England aboard Peerless2 (in December), the Defendant (Wichelhaus) refused to pay.
- The ship that Wichelhaus was expecting to bring him the cotton had left India in October (Peerless1).
- 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 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 parol evidence
- Wichelhaus argued that the contract assumed that there was only 1 relevant vessel named Peerless
Holding
Wichelhaus's parol evidence (oral 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.
- There was no meeting of the minds.
Resources