Careless Homework And Caveat Vendor In The Law Of Contract
| Date | 01 November 1960 |
| Published date | 01 November 1960 |
| Author | Eric C. E. Todd |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1960.tb00642.x |
Nov.
1960
NOTES
OF
CASES
691
this country.
It
might also be incidentally remarked that the case
is an illustration of the dangers inherent in departing from the
"
classic
"
form of f.0.b. contract where the seller both puts the
goods aboard and procures a bill of lading.
to the well-known words of Devlin
J.
in
Pyrene
v.
Scindia
lo
on
the modern flexibility of f.0.b. contracts and said that the present
case was an illustration of this in that the seller discharged its
duty by putting the chrome on board ship and allowing the buyer
by means of the possession of a weight certificate
l1
to obtain
whatever bill of lading he wanted. Of this the Chief Justice
said
12:
"
It
is true that the course which the seller adopted was,
as the events show, an improvident one.
It
put the buyer in
a
position to procure a bill of lading which would give him
control of the goods and yet would not comply with the terms
of the letter of credit,
so
that the seller unnecessarily lost all
control of the goods without payment
or
assurance of
payment."
Dixon
C.J.
alluded
A.
H.
HUDSON.
CARELESS
HOMEWORK
AND
CAVEAT
VENDOR
IN
THE
LAW
OF
CONTRACT
PROFESSOR
Corbin states in his treatise on
Contracts
l:
"
There are many cases in which one party has assented
to a definite bargain because of some antecedent error of
computation that he has made. Their number is due to the
fact that men are poor accountants and inaccurate in doing
simple mathematical problems.
If
the mistake is discovered
and corrected by notice before an acceptance of the mistaken
offer, no harm results and no relief is necessary. But if an
acceptance has taken place, trouble may arise.
If
the error
was made by the offeror, then the offer is one that would not
have been made but for the mistake. This is the frequently
occurring case."
Such was the case in
Imperial Glass, Ltd.
v.
Consolidated
Supplies, Ltd.,2
in which the British Columbia Court of Appeal
overruled the trial judge who had ordered rescission of a contract
for unilateral mistake.
In October
1957
the appellant, suppliers and installers of
window-glass, was invited by a sub-contractor on the construction
of a school to bid
on
the supplying and installation of window-glass.
Before submitting a bid the appellant telephoned the office of the
respondent and requested a quotation on
"
Twin-Seal
')
glass. The
10
[1954] 2
Q.B.
402
at p.
424.
11
This
document
was
the equivalent
of
a
mate's receipt.
12
(1958-59) 100
C.L.R.
at pp.
241-242.
9
(1958-59)
100 C.L.R. at
p.
241.
*
1951,
Vol.
3,
para. 609 at
p.
435.
2
(1960)
22
D.L.R.
(2d) 759
(Bird,
Coady and Sheppard
JJ.A.).
To continue reading
Request your trial