It may as well be said, that if there is a contract for the purchase of certain goods in warehouse., that is satisfied by the delivery of goods of the same description in warehouse.
The defendant thought that it was the October sailing and the claimant believed it was the December sailing which had been agreed.
The issue in this case was whether there was an enforceable contract between the parties.Plaintiff agreed to sell defendant cotton ethan allen promo code described as arriving.Judgment edit, though courts will strive to find a reasonable interpretation in order to preserve the agreement whenever possible, the court.Intention is of no avail, unless stated at the time of the contract.
The court applied an objective test and stated that a reasonable person would not have been able to state with certainty which sailing had been agreed.
Raffles v Wichelhaus 1864, eWHC Exch J19, often called "The Peerless" case, is a leading case on mutual mistake in, english contract law.
Dissent: It is immaterial by what ship the cotton was to arrive, as long as it was named Peerless.
It is imposing on the defendant a contract different from that which he entered into.Peerless arrived, the claimant tried to deliver it, however the defendant repudiated the agreement, saying that their contract was for the cotton on the October.The issue before the Court was whether the defendant should be bound by the agreement to buy the cotton of the claimant's.That would be so if the contract was for the sale of a ship called the Peerless ; but it is for the sale of cotton on board a ship of that name.Facts, the complainant, Mr Raffles, offered to sell an amount of Surat cotton to the defendant, Mr Wichelhaus.Free Case Summaries, fREE Act Summaries, fREE Lecture Notes.Therefore, the defendants prevailed, and did not have to pay.