Hartog v Colin & Shields
A party cannot accept an offer that it knows the other party has made by mistake as to its terms.
Facts
The defendants offered to sell 30,000 Argentinian hare skins to the plaintiff. During negotiations, the price had always been discussed per piece, which was also the usual practice in the trade. By mistake, the defendants' written offer stated the price per pound. Since there were about three skins to a pound, this meant that the skins were offered at about one third of the intended price. The plaintiff accepted the offer and, when the defendants refused to deliver, sued for breach of contract.
Legal principle
Singleton J held that there was no binding contract. The plaintiff must have known that the offer did not express the defendants' real intention, because all the negotiations had been on a per piece basis and the price per pound was out of line with the trade practice and the earlier discussions. A party cannot snatch at an offer that he knows was made by mistake as to its terms. Where one party knows that the other is mistaken about the terms of the offer, the objective principle does not apply, and the contract is void.
Related cases on mistake
- Associated Japanese Bank (International) Ltd v Crédit du Nord SA [1989] 1 WLR 255
- Bell v Lever Brothers Ltd [1932] AC 161
- Couturier v Hastie (1856) 5 HLC 673
- Cundy v Lindsay (1878) 3 App Cas 459
- Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1407, [2003] QB 679
- Ingram v Little [1961] 1 QB 31
- Lewis v Averay [1972] 1 QB 198
- Phillips v Brooks Ltd [1919] 2 KB 243
Studying contract law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
