Mellish and Another v Motteux and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 March 1820 |
| Date | 02 March 1820 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 113
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
Mellish and Another
and
Motteux and Others
Disapproved, Baglehole v. Walters, 1811, 3Camp 154
[156] Friday, March 2d. mellish and another v motteux and others (The seller of a ship is bound to disclose to the buyer all latent defects known to him ) [Disapproved, Baglehole v Walters, 1811, 3 Camp 154] The first count of this declaration stated, that in consideration the plaintiffs would buy of the defendants a brig, together with all the rigging, &c. belonging thereto , the defendants undertook and promised the plaintiffs that the brig was free from all latent and concealed defects The count theu [157] stated, that she was not free from latent and concealed defects, and that the defendants at the time of the promise well knew the same It was proved, that the plaintiffs bought the brig " with all faults, ' and not a word was said at the time...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
5 cases
-
Bhasin v. Hrynew et al., (2014) 464 N.R. 254 (SCC)
...634, refd to. [para. 35]. Mills v. Mills (1938), 60 C.L.R. 150 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 35]. Mellish v. Motteux (1792), Peake 156; 170 E.R. 113, refd to. [para. 35]. Carter v. Boehm (1766), 3 Burr. 1905; 97 E.R. 1162, refd to. [para. 35]. Herbert v. Mercantile Fire Insurance Co. (1878)......
-
Bhasin v. Hrynew et al., (2014) 584 A.R. 6
...634, refd to. [para. 35]. Mills v. Mills (1938), 60 C.L.R. 150 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 35]. Mellish v. Motteux (1792), Peake 156; 170 E.R. 113, refd to. [para. 35]. Carter v. Boehm (1766), 3 Burr. 1905; 97 E.R. 1162, refd to. [para. 35]. Herbert v. Mercantile Fire Insurance Co. (1878)......
-
Bhasin v. Hrynew, [2014] 3 SCR 494
...to: Aleyn v. Belchier (1758), 1 Eden 132, 28 E.R. 634; Mills v. Mills (1938), 60 C.L.R. 150; Mellish v. Motteux (1792), Peake 156, 170 E.R. 113; Carter v. Boehm (1766), 3 Burr. 1905, 97 E.R. 1162; Herbert v. Mercantile Fire Ins. Co. (1878), 43 U.C.Q.B. 384; Gateway Realty Ltd. v. Arton Hold......
-
Bhasin v. Hrynew et al., [2014] N.R. TBEd. NO.014
...fide for the end designed, otherwise it is corrupt and void." Similarly, Lord Kenyon wrote in Mellish v. Motteux (1792), Peake 156, 170 E.R. 113, "in contracts of all kinds, it is of the highest importance that courts of law should compel the observance of honesty and good faith&q......
Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
-
The Duty to Perform in Good Faith
...1905, 97 ER 1162 at 1164 (“a good faith forbids either party by concealing what he privately knows”); Millish v Motteux (1792), Peake 156, 170 ER 113 (“in contracts of all kinds, it is of the highest importance that courts of law should compel the observance of honesty and good faith”). For......