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 |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|court=Court of Exchequer | |court=Court of Exchequer | ||
|citation=2 Hurl. & C. 906*159 Eng. Rep. 375 | |citation=2 Hurl. & C. 906*159 Eng. Rep. 375 | ||
|date=1864 | |date=January 20, 1864 | ||
|subject=Contracts | |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 | |||
*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 [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. | |||
* 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 | |||
}} | |||
}} | |||
Latest revision as of 03:14, 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 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
