Smith v Hughes

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Date1870
Year1870
CourtQueen's Bench Division
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
328 cases
  • Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd (Cape Providence)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • October 14, 2002
    ... ... Mr Justice Toulson Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL (Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG Tel No: 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) ... 60 The other case to which Lord Atkin referred was Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597 ... On no view did that difficult case deal with common mistake and we are not able to see how it supported the test formulated by ... ...
  • Daventry District Council v Daventry & District Housing Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • May 9, 2011
    ...he did not intend. 178 However, the present case has special features. Mr Roebuck well knew what terms Mr Bruno was meaning to offer. Smith v Hughes is authority that where one party knows the terms which the other party is meaning to put forward, he cannot hold the other party to a differe......
  • Young v Tibbits
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • Invalid date
  • Overseas Union Bank v Lew Keh Lam
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • August 26, 1998
    ...is the objective intention of the parties that the court is seeking to construe. As succinctly stated by Blackburn J in Smith v Hughes [1871] LR 6 QB 597: If, whatever a man`s real intention may be, he so conducts himself that a reasonable man would believe that he was assenting to the term......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 firm's commentaries
33 books & journal articles
  • Defining the Obligation to Perform
    • United States
    • Contract Doctrine, Theory & Practice. Volume Two
    • March 11, 2012
    ...and the extract cited therefrom in the opinion of my brethren, clearly sustains the views I have taken. See, also, Smith v. Hughes , L.R. 6 Q.B. 597; Carter v. Crick , 4 Hurl. & N. 416. [24] According to this record, whatever the mistake was, if any, in this case, it was upon the part of th......
  • Where the Action Is: Macro and Micro Justice in Contract Law
    • United Kingdom
    • Wiley The Modern Law Review No. 83-4, July 2020
    • July 1, 2020
    ...OUP, 1999) 277-278.85 R. Bigwood, Exploitative Contracts (Oxford: OUP, 2003) 61.86 ibid, 80 (emphasis in original).87 Smith vHughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597; OT Africa Line Ltd vVickers plc [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 700.88 A. Bur rows, A Restatement of the English Law of Contract (Oxford: OUP, 2016) 2......
  • Contract Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2015, December 2015
    • December 1, 2015
    ...Leong gen ed) (Academy Publishing, 2012) at paras 03.006–03.014). Indeed, as Blackburn J said in the classical case of Smith v Hughes(1871) LR 6 QB 597 at 607, regardless of a man's real intention, he would be bound if his conduct reasonably leads another party to enter into a contract with......
  • Mistake
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Law of Contracts. Third Edition Vitiating Factors
    • August 4, 2020
    ...of the agreement entered — typically by executing a written agreement — by the mistaken party. These are cases of non est factum . 6 (1871), LR 6 QB 597 (Div Ct). 7 Ibid at 607. THE L AW OF CONTR ACTS 580 If the doctrine is applicable, the mistaken party is allowed to assert that he or she ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT