It may as well be said, that if there is a contract for the puppies for giveaway in nd purchase of certain goods in warehouse., that is satisfied by the delivery of goods of the same description in warehouse.
In response, Raffles sued Wichelhaus for the contract price under a theory of breach of contract.
Consequently, as there was no consensus ad idem (as defendant alleged the two parties did not agree to the same thing and there was no binding contract.
Pollock CB It would be a question for the jury whether massage gift card templates both parties meant the same ship called the Peerless.Rule of Law or Legal Principle Applied: When parties to a contract mutually misunderstand the terms of their agreement, no contract exists.In examining the terms of a contract, the court will consider the contract itself.Peerless, leaving from Bombay, to be delivered in Liverpool, England.However, there were in fact two ships named the.Contents, the claimant entered into a contract to sell "125 bales.That would be so if the contract was for the sale of a ship called the Peerless ; but it is for the sale of cotton on board a ship of that name.The defendant has no right to contradict by parol evidence a written contract good upon the face.Pollock CB One vessel sailed in October and the other in December.
Judgment edit, though courts will strive to find a reasonable interpretation in order to preserve the agreement whenever possible, the court.
Peerless was intended in the contract.
Liverpool on the ship, peerless from, bombay to arrive ex Peerless from Bombay.
The court held that since the evidence showed that each party meant a different ship in their understanding of which Peerless was to deliver the cotton, the formation requirement to have a meeting of the minds never occurred.
Peerless arrived, the claimant tried to deliver it, however the defendant repudiated the agreement, saying that their contract was for the cotton on the October.And you can use the.The case's fame is bolstered by the ironic coincidence contained within: each party had in mind a particular ship, with no knowledge of the other's existence, yet each ship was named.The defendant, according to statements presented in court, thought the contract was for cotton on the October ship while the claimant thought the contract was for the cotton on the December ship.Since the contract does not specify which Peerless was specifically supposed to deliver the cotton, the court permitted the parties to enter parol evidence to clear up the latent ambiguity.Mellish (Cohen with him in support of the plea.