of Exchequer, 1864.
Hurlstone & Coltman 906.
Dawson, pp. 358-359
Facts: The plaintiff agreed to
sell the defendant cotton that was going to arrive from Bombay on a ship called the “Peerless”. Little did they know that there were actually
lots of ships with that name. When one
of the “Peerlesses” arrived, the plaintiff was ready to sell, but the defendant
repudiated. The defendant argued that
the agreement had been to buy cotton from the other “Peerless” which
arrived in October, and so the defendant wasn’t bound to buy cotton off of the “Peerless”
that arrived in December. The plaintiffs
argued that it didn’t matter what ship it was and that the point of naming the
ship was that if the ship sunk while in transit, the contract would be void.
Issue: Should the defendant be
bound by the agreement to buy the cotton from the other “Peerless”?
Rule: There is no binding contract
unless both sides agreed to the same thing.
Analysis: Apparently, the court
accepts the argument of the defense that the contract was too ambiguous to
Conclusion: The court finds for the defendant.
Back to Mutual Assent
Back to Casebook Notes