Rose v Pim [1953] 2 QB 450
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-04 06:59:32 UTC
Plaintiff asked Defendant what “feveroles” were. Defendant mistakenly said that they were “horse beans” and Defendant agreed to sell them to Plaintiff.
After paying, Plaintiff later realised that actually “feveroles” and “horse beans” were not the same thing.
However it was “horse beans” and not “feveroles” mentioned in the oral agreements and contracts and therefore in supplying them, Defendant had not breached.
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
Smith v Hughes
The contract between the parties was not based on the subjective intentions of the parties but on the objective meaning of the words used in the contract. Contractual obligations are based on the obj...
Clef Aquitaine v Laporte Materials (Barrow) Ltd
Plaintiff agreed to purchase, sell and distribute Defendant’s products at a price list set by Defendant, following a misrepresentation by Defendant that Defendant would not be selling any products be...
Couturier v Hastie
Plaintiff contracted to sell corn to Defendant but the corn deteriorated and was sold before the date of the sale and Defendant refused to pay. Plaintiff sued for the money, claiming that Defendant h...
Raffles v Wichelhaus
There was confusion since a contract stipulated that goods should be carried in the ship Peerless and there were two ships by that name, one of which would arrive later. Defendant asserted that he ha...
Arcos Ltd v E A Ronaassen & Son
In commercial transactions, implied conditions ensure fairness and efficacy, covering quality and conformity. They uphold trust and accountability, guiding parties through agreements with fairness. A...
Related free notes samples
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.