Wallis and Others v Pratt and Haynes
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 May 1911 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1911] UKHL J0505-2 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Date | 05 May 1911 |
[1911] UKHL J0505-2
House of Lords
After hearing Counsel this day upon the Petition and Appeal of Henry Marriage Wallis, William Henry Smith, and George William Bray, trading together in co-partnership as "Wallis, Son and Wells," whose address is Victoria Wharf, King's Road, Reading, in the County of Berks, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 21st of June 1910, might be reviewed before His Majesty the King in His Court of Parliament, and that the said Order might be reversed, varied, or altered, or that the Petitioners might have such other relief in the premises as to His Majesty the King in His Court of Parliament might seem meet; as also upon the printed Case of Pratt and Haynes, lodged in answer to the said Appeal; and due consideration had of what was offered on either side in this Cause:
It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of His Majesty the King assembled, That the said Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 21st day of June 1910, complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same is hereby, Reversed, and that the Order of Mr. Justice Bray, of the 25th day of January 1910, thereby set aside, be, and the same is hereby, Restored: And it is further Ordered, That the Respondents do pay, or cause to be paid, to the said Appellants the Costs incurred by them in the Courts below, and also the Costs incurred by them in respect of the said Appeal to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bominflot Bunkergesellschaft fur Mineralole mbH & Company v Petroplus Marketing AG (The Mercini Lady)
...clause 18 uses the word “warranties” and such wording is insufficient to exclude a condition: see Wallis, Son & Wells v Pratt & Haynes [1911] AC 394, where the House of Lords held that the words “Sellers give no warranty express or implied as to growth, description, or any other matters” di......
-
Dalmare Spa (Appellants (Sellers) v Union Maritime Ltd and Another (Respondents (Buyers) (The "Union Power")
...to the wider second question, Mr Rainey relied upon the line of authorities in appellate courts from Wallis, Son & Wells v Pratt & Haynes [1911] AC 394 to Bominflot v Petroplus Marketing ("The Mercini Lady") [2010] EWCA Civ 1145; [2011] 1 Lloyd's Rep 442 which establish that the implied te......
-
Hardwick Game Farm v Suffolk Agricultural Poultry Producers Association
...such a clause does not protect the sellers against an action for damages for breach of a condition of the contract: ( Wallis v. Pratt, (1911) A. C. 394; Barker v. Agius, (1927) 33 Com. Cas. 120). 139 SALE OF GOODS ACT. SECTION 14 (2) 140 The learned judge did not deal expressly with the cla......
-
State Trading Corporation of India Ltd v Golodetz Ltd
...First, in his dissenting judgment in Wallace v. Pratt (1910) 2 KB 1003 which was unanimously approved by the House of Lords on appeal in (1911) AC 394 Fletcher Moulton J. said at p. 1012 that conditions are terms "which go so directly to the substance of the contract or, in other words, ar......
-
How to identify and respond to repudiation of a contract
...[1921] 1 AC 271). Depending on the circumstances, you may still have access to remedies for any breach of contract (Wallis v Pratt [1911] AC 394). It should be noted that the repudiating party may be able to retract the repudiation before your acceptance (Guy-Pell v Foster [1930] 2 Ch 169) ......