Raffles v Wichelhaus and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 January 1864 |
| Date | 20 January 1864 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 159 E.R. 375
IN THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 33 L. J. Ex. 160 Referred to, Smith v. Hughes, 1871, L. R 6 Q. B. 609. Explained, Van Praagh v. Everidge, [1902] 2 Ch. 266.
[906] baffles v. wlchelhaus and another. Jan. '20, 1864 -To a declaration for not accepting Surat cotton which the defendant bought of the plaintiff " to anive ex ' Peerless' from Bombay," the defendant pleaded that he meant a ship called the " Peerless" which sailed from Bombay, in October, and the plaintiff was not ready to deliver any cotton which arrived by that ship, but only cotton which arrived by another ship called the "Peerless," which sailed from Bombay in December. Held, oil demurrer, that the plea was a good answer. [S. C. 33 L. J. Ex. 160 Referred to, Smith v. Hughes, 1871, L. R 6 Q. B. 609. Explained, Van Praagh v. Evendye, [1902] 2 Ch. 266.] Declaration. For that it was agreed between the plaintiff and the defendants, to wit, at Liverpool, that the plaintiff should sell to the defendants, and the defendants buy of the plaintiff, certain goods, to wit, 125 bales of Surat cotton, guaranteed middling fair merchant's Dhollorah, to arrive ex "Peerless" from Bombay ; and that the cotton should be taken from the quay, and that the defendants would pay the plaintiff for the same at a certain rate, to wit, at the rate of 17^d. per pound, within a certain time then agreed upon after the arrival of the said goods in England Averments that the said goods did arrive by the said ship from Bombay in England, to wit, at Liverpool, and the plaintiff was then and there ready, and willing and offered to deliver the said goods to the defendants, &c Breach : that the defendants refused to accept the said goods or pay the plaintiff for them Plea. That the said ship mentioned in the said agreement was meant and intended by the defendants to be the ship called the " Peerless," which sailed from Bombay, to wit, in October ; and that the plaintiff was not ready and willing and did not offer to deliver to the defendants any bales of cotton which arrived by the last mentioned ship, but instead thereof was only ready and willing and offered to deliver-to the defendants 125 bales of Surat cotton which arrived by another and different ship, which was also called the "Peerless," and which sailed from Bombay, to wit, in December. Demurrer, and joinder therein. [907] Milward, in support of the demurrer. The contract was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Life Insurance Company of Australia Ltd v Phillips
- M Pakiam v YP Devathanjam
-
RBTT (formerly known as the Nevis Co-operative Banking Company Ltd and the Caribbean Banking Corporation) Claimant v Almon Nisbett (by his Lawful Attorney, Masefield Nisbett) Defendant Almon Nisbett (by his Lawful Attorney, Masefield Nisbett) Claimant RBTT (formerly known as the Nevis Co-operative Banking Company Umited and the Caribbean Banking Corporation) Defendant [ECSC]
...to the terms or subject-matter contained in a contract. 22 Mutual mistake was considered by the court in the case ofRaffles v Wichelaus [1871] LR 6 QB 5975. In that case, the court found that an objective assessment of the negotiations between the parties showed that they were at cross-purp......
-
Galliard Homes Ltd v J Jarvis & Sons Plc
...plc [1996] CLC 722 Paal Wilson & Co A/S v Partenreederei Hannah BlumenthalELR [1983] AC 854 Raffles v WichelhausENRENR (1864) 2 H & C 906; 159 ER 375 Rimeco Riggelsen Metal Co v Queensborough Rolling MillsUNK (unreported, 26 March 1993) Scriven Brothers & Co v Hindley & CoELR [1913] 3 KB 56......
-
Peerless, This is Not: Sixth Circuit Finds No Latent Ambiguity in Consent to Settle Requirement in Excess Policy
...and history of the latent ambiguity doctrine, citing the textbook example of the two ships named Peerless in Raffles v. Wichelhaus, 2 H. & C. 906, 159 Eng. Rep. 375 (Ex. 1864). There, two parties contracted for a shipment of cotton “to arrive ex ‘Peerless’ from Bombay.” Id. The terms were p......
-
the Push Toward Assent
...and now I have got him.” Would that change the result in Lucy v. Zehmer? 261 RAFFLES v. WICHELHAUS (1864) Court of the Exchequer 2 Hurl. & C. 906 [¶1] Declaration. For that it was agreed between the plaintiff and the defendants, to wit, at Liverpool, that the plaintiff should sell to the de......
-
Mistake
...there were two vessels named Peerless due to sail from Bombay, one in October and the other in December. Although, 8 (1864), 2 H & C 906, 159 ER 375 (Ex). See generally R Birmingham, “Holmes on ‘Peerless’; Raffles v Wichelhaus and the Objective Theory of Contract” (1985) 47 U Pitt LR 183; ......
-
When the First Amendment Compels an Offensive Result: Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
...Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., v. Colo. Civil Rights Comm’n, 137 S. Ct. 2290 (2017) (No. 16-111). 52. Id. at 68. 53. Raffles v. Wichelhaus, 2 H. & C. 906, 159 Eng. Rep. 375 (Ex. 1864). 54. OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES, THE COMMON LAW 242 (Howe ed., 1963) (emphasis added). 430 LOUISIANA LAW REVIEW [Vo......
-
Legal Hermeneutics: A Philosophical Critique
...at 502, 84 S.E. 2d at 521. 118 M. Ermarth, Wilhelm Dilthey : The Critique of Historical Reason , 244 (1978). 119 Court of Exchequer, 1864, 2 H&C 906, 159Eng. Rep. 375. 120 P. Hobsbaum, A Theory of Communications xiii (1970). 121 Farnsworth, supra note 104, at 951. 122 190 F. Supp. 116 (S.D.......